BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Death of a Member

Mr Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Paul Goggins, the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. Paul was a most assiduous Member, serving as a Home Office and a Northern Ireland Minister in the last Government, and most recently as a distinguished member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to Paul’s wife, Wyn, his children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic, his granddaughter, Eve, and his many friends and family.
	Paul and I entered the House together, and I can honestly say that I have never heard an ill word spoken of him. Labour to his core, he was, yet, the least tribal of colleagues. Whether battling against poverty, campaigning successfully for the victims of mesothelioma, working for the rehabilitation of prisoners or striving for peace in Northern Ireland, Paul was the same: principled, eloquent and tireless, but unfailingly courteous, measured and respectful. He always played the ball, never the man or the woman.
	An outstanding public servant who came into politics for all the right reasons, Paul’s passing is a loss on so many levels. The House has lost a valued colleague, his constituency a faithful representative, his party an outstanding ambassador and, above all, his family a loving husband, father and grandfather.
	Prayers for Paul will also be said at the usual 12.45 service today in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Block Grant

Madeleine Moon: If he will estimate the cumulative real-terms change to the Welsh block grant over the present Parliament.

David Jones: On what is a sad morning for the House, I am sure that colleagues on both sides would also wish me to mention
	the passing in December of the right hon. Lord Roberts of Conwy, who served the Welsh Office with such distinction for so many years. He was a doughty champion for Wales and the Welsh language, and I am sure that many Members on both sides will regret his passing.
	The protections placed on health and education have insulated the Welsh Government’s resource budget from the extent of reductions faced by many UK Departments. In addition, the Welsh Government’s capital budget will increase in real terms by 8.4% next year and 2.4% the year after.

Madeleine Moon: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the Welsh Government’s budget has been cut by 10% since 2010—a cut of £1.6 billion? Their capital budget to date has been cut by a third, which has impacted horrendously on front-line services. In my Bridgend constituency alone, that has meant £30 million-worth of cuts in front-line services. Does the Secretary of State not recognise the damage of these cuts to the people of Wales?

David Jones: All parts of the United Kingdom are having to bear their part in repairing the economic damage that was sustained as a result of the downturn in 2008. However, I am sure the hon. Lady would recognise that since 2010 the United Kingdom Government have provided an additional £737 million to the Welsh Government, and it is up to the Welsh Government to live within their means.

David Davies: Given that the UK Government have given extra money in cash terms to the Welsh Assembly in the form of its block grant, does the Secretary of State find it as extraordinary as I do that the Welsh Assembly has imposed drastic cuts on local authorities across Wales that are bound to lead to increases in council taxes and reductions in public services?

David Jones: That is ultimately a matter for the Welsh Government, but it is noteworthy that, whereas council taxpayers in England are benefitting from a council tax freeze, that is not happening in Wales. Perhaps that is something the Welsh Government should be attending to.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I first associate myself fully with the words of tribute to the late, greatly respected, right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and to the late Lord Roberts of Conwy?
	I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that reform of the Barnett formula is still an issue about which we are all very concerned. We in Plaid Cymru have campaigned about it for more than 25 years. It is interesting that the Labour party is now in favour of reforming Barnett, which it did nothing about for 13 years. In fact, when it was in government, it denied the existence of the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any views on that issue?

David Jones: It is generally recognised that the Barnett formula does not have an indefinite duration. However, it is the priority of this Government to ensure that the public finances are stabilised, and that is what we intend to do.

Elfyn Llwyd: Which does the right hon. Gentleman think is worse—the self-serving preconditions set by the Labour party to block further devolution, or the failure of his Government to propose the full tax-varying powers contained in the cross-party Silk commission recommendations?

David Jones: I would always be the first to condemn the self-serving nature of the Labour party.

Mark Williams: Barnett consequentials and, indeed, funding from the European Union have been key components of spending in Wales for many years. What representations has the Secretary of State made about Barnett consequentials and European funding to address the devastation that has occurred in recent days along the Welsh coast, not least in Ceredigion, but also in the constituencies of many other hon. Members?

David Jones: I have had many conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Clearly, Aberystwyth has suffered extreme damage as a consequence of the storms of the past few days, and I assure my hon. Friend that, if any additional funding is provided, Barnett consequentials will follow in the usual manner.

Renewables (Jobs)

Ian Lucas: What assessment he has made of job prospects in the renewables sector in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: This Government’s recent announcements on strike prices aim to make the UK, including Wales, one of the most attractive places to invest in renewable technologies. Our reforms will ensure that more than 30% of our electricity comes from renewables by 2020, attracting £110 billion of investment and supporting up to a quarter of a million jobs.

Ian Lucas: May I associate myself with the kind remarks of the Secretary of State relating to both Paul Goggins and Lord Roberts, who was a true servant of north Wales and a lovely man?
	On renewables, I am very disappointed that the Minister did not refer to Sharp solar in Wrexham, which as recently as 2011 was expanding and providing more jobs. I spoke to the chief executive of Sharp solar in Wrexham before Christmas, when he told me that this Government’s catastrophic and chaotic renewables policy had contributed to its decision not to continue manufacturing in Wrexham, with the loss of 600 jobs. Will the Minister break the Wales Office’s silence and apologise to the people who have lost their jobs as a result of incompetence?

Stephen Crabb: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment for his constituents. The news about the Sharp job losses was a bitter blow just before Christmas. I have been in touch with Sharp, and we at the Wales Office have spoken to them. It is just not correct to associate the decision taken by Sharp with the changes to the feed-in tariff policy. If he speaks to industry experts who are knowledgeable about these issues, they will tell him that it is much more to do with
	the wave of cheap Chinese imports of solar panels that have come into Europe and flooded the European market, so making domestic production very challenging indeed.

Philip Hollobone: Whether power is generated from renewable or non-renewable sources, there is an increasing problem in Wales and the rest of the country in getting new power sources connected to the grid because of the shortage of power engineers. Will my hon. Friend work with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Welsh Assembly Government to see how this issue can be tackled in Wales?

Stephen Crabb: As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very pertinent issue, of which both we in the Wales Office and, more importantly, the Welsh Government, who have devolved responsibility for skills, are aware. We are in discussions with the key players and stakeholders in Wales about how we can raise up a new generation of power engineers to take forward the changes that we are trying to effect.

Chris Ruane: The loss of the Sharp solar panel factory in Wrexham, which was the biggest solar panel factory in western Europe, was a devastating blow to the Welsh economy. What can the Minister do to mitigate the closure, in which his Government are complicit? Specifically, can he help to draw down UK research funding to the solar research institute in Optic Glyndwr in St Asaph?

Stephen Crabb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am very aware of the important work being done at Glyndwr university, and we are in close touch with the university about its work. On what we can do to mitigate the job impact in Wrexham, I encourage both him and his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) to give full-throated support to the £250 million that the Government are putting into Wrexham to create a new prison—something on which we have yet to hear full support on from Opposition Members.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Labour has called consistently for the devolution of energy consents for projects of up to 100 MW. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for the amendment, which was not supported by the Government, that he tabled to the Energy Bill. Why are the Government opposed to the devolution of energy, which would allow the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales to make their own decisions on energy and renewable energy in particular?

Stephen Crabb: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there has been nothing consistent about Labour’s approach to energy policy either in government or in opposition.

Living Standards

Susan Elan Jones: What assessment he has made of the effects on living standards in Wales of the measures announced in the autumn statement.

Hywel Francis: What assessment he has made of the effects on living standards in Wales of the measures announced in the autumn statement.

Stephen Crabb: The autumn statement set out further measures to ensure that there is a responsible economic recovery. That is the only way to achieve the sustained rise in living standards in Wales and across the UK that we all want to see.

Susan Elan Jones: May I associate myself with the tributes that have been given?
	I thank the Minister for his answer, but many of us are dismayed that the autumn statement did little to address issues related to poverty. Does the Secretary of State really believe that it is right that food bank usage in Wales has gone up 1,400% since 2010? Surely, that is not acceptable.

Stephen Crabb: We know that the Labour party discovered food banks only in 2010. Before that, Labour Members denied that they even existed. In the autumn statement and at the end of last year, we saw average wages in Wales increasing at double the rate of inflation and personal disposable income in Wales increasing. The situation is still very challenging for many households in Wales, but the overall picture is positive, and the hon. Lady should support that.

Hywel Francis: In my constituency of Aberavon, real wages have fallen by £2,000 in recent years and some 5,000 households have witnessed a reduction in their working tax credits. That comes against the background of rising energy prices, which are higher in south Wales than anywhere else in Britain. Does the Minister agree—as a reasonable person, I am sure that he does—that the best way to address the squeeze in living standards on the people of my constituency and of Wales is to endorse Labour’s proposal of a freeze in energy prices, which would benefit 30,000 households in my constituency?

Stephen Crabb: We are going further than that by delivering a reduction in energy prices of about £50 per household. One of the best ways in which we can equip households in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and throughout Wales to face these challenging times is by returning more money to their pockets. We are taking 130,000 people in Wales out of income tax altogether and freezing fuel taxes, so that petrol prices are 20p per litre lower than they would have been under Labour’s plans. That is the way to help households meet the cost of living.

Jonathan Evans: As the only Welsh Conservative MP who had the privilege of serving alongside Lord Roberts of Conwy, may I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks? May I also associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, about Paul Goggins, whose untimely death has come as such a shock to us all?
	On living standards, will my hon. Friend confirm that the cumulative effect of the autumn statement will be that petrol prices will be 20p per litre lower than they otherwise would have been and that the average taxpayer will pay £700 less?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government are taking those practical steps to help people on the lowest incomes in particular. We are determined that this should be a recovery for all sections of society in Wales.

Guto Bebb: The autumn statement contained very welcome measures to reduce the burden of business rates on small businesses in England. What efforts will the Minister make to ensure that the Welsh Government follow suit, to support small businesses in Wales?

Stephen Crabb: In the autumn statement, we made resources available to the Welsh Government to take exactly the same action as the Government in Westminster have taken to help small businesses with their business rates. I was pleased that the Welsh Minister announced yesterday that they would take forward the cap on business rates in Wales. We are yet to hear whether they will deliver the £1,000 discount for small businesses that we are delivering.

Albert Owen: May I associate myself with your words, Mr Speaker, on Paul Goggins, who was a great friend, and with the Secretary of State’s words on Lord Roberts, who was a great Anglesey man? Wales is a net producer of energy, a major electricity generator and a major terminal for imported gas, but people in Wales are paying some of the highest prices in the United Kingdom for gas and electricity. Will the Minister look closely at the distribution companies that are passing on extra costs to the Welsh consumer to ensure that there is a level playing field on prices?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue for his constituents and people throughout Wales. At the Wales Office, I regularly meet companies such as Western Power Distribution and National Grid to discuss why many consumers in Wales are paying those higher costs, and for all kinds of reasons. If he has specific questions that he would like me to follow up, I would be happy to meet him to do that.

Owen Smith: May I, too, associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Lord Roberts and in particular express my sadness at the passing of our friend and comrade Paul Goggins? I worked with Paul at the Northern Ireland Office, and I can say from personal experience that he was a wonderful Minister, a lovely man, and a hugely dedicated Member of the House. All our thoughts are with his family; everybody who knew Paul will miss him greatly.
	A moment ago, the Minister said that measures in the autumn statement would cut energy bills for families in Wales by £50. That was one boast made by the Chancellor in that statement, and it came to fruition in Wales this morning with the announcement by SSE—Wales’s biggest energy supplier—that it was helping families with a price cut. Will the Minister confirm what that announcement actually means for families in Wales?

Stephen Crabb: The action that we are taking across a broad range of measures—energy, fuel prices, income tax thresholds—means that we are helping people on
	the lowest incomes in Wales with the challenges of the cost of living at the moment. The hon. Gentleman does not refer to the fact that we are seeing improvements in wages in Wales and in personal disposable income, and he should welcome the overall positive picture that is emerging in Wales.

Owen Smith: I had hoped that the Minister would have made a new year’s resolution to be a little more straightforward with the Welsh people. The truth is that the announcement by SSE this morning, following the announcement by the Chancellor that bills will be cut by £50, is actually that bills will rise in Wales this year by £70. It is a con trick, plain and simple, and the Minister should admit that and urge his colleagues to adopt Labour’s price freeze as the only way to curb these profiteering energy companies.

Stephen Crabb: I am sorry to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but if he talks to people in industry out there who understand the economics of energy, they will all tell him that what the Labour party has proposed for energy does not make sense at all and has no credibility. The Government are taking real practical action that helps families at difficult times, and the picture that we are seeing in Wales overall is positive.

Draft Wales Bill

Martin Caton: If he will publish an impact assessment of the effect of the draft Wales Bill on cross-border areas.

David Jones: The Government published a summary impact assessment with the draft Wales Bill, which examines the effects of the Bill’s provisions on cross-border areas. We intend to introduce the Bill in the fourth Session, subject to agreement of the fourth Session programme, and a full impact assessment will accompany the Bill on introduction.

Martin Caton: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the draft Bill provides for a lock-step approach to varying income tax bands, against the wishes of all political parties in the Assembly and against the advice of the Silk commission. The reason given is concern about overall progressivity in the UK tax system. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on what he means by progressivity and say why he is adopting that approach?

David Jones: As the Government have made clear, they believe that the progressivity of the UK tax system should remain at Westminster. That is why those provisions have been inserted in the draft Bill.

Glyn Davies: One damaging consequence of devolution has been the abandonment of investment in cross-border road improvement in mid-Wales because the Department for Transport—quite reasonably—sees no economic benefit to England in improving access to mid-Wales. In the response to the Silk commission report, will my right hon. Friend rectify that damaging consequence of devolution for mid-Wales?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right, and cross-border road routes are one unfortunate consequence of devolution, in that no overarching arrangement is in place. I have specifically asked the Silk commission to consider that issue, and I hope that it will address it in its report.

Nia Griffith: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that certainty on taxation policy is key to boosting economic confidence in Wales. Although he has told us of his vision to use the Wales Bill for a 1p cut to all income tax bands in Wales, the leader of the Conservative party in Wales has said that he would cut only the top band of tax. Will the Secretary of State clear up that complete muddle about his Government’s position on taxation in Wales?

David Jones: We have made it absolutely clear that we believe a competitive Welsh economy would depend to a large extent on a competitive rate of tax. However, I must remind the hon. Lady that devolution of income tax is a matter for the Welsh Government, in that it would be the Welsh Government who would have to put forward a referendum to the Welsh Assembly.

Universal Credit

Ann Clwyd: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the roll-out of universal credit on people in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: The roll-out of universal credit will reduce the historic dependency on benefits for the people of Wales by making the system simple and more flexible, and by increasing the incentive to work.

Ann Clwyd: Is it not a fact that repeated promises to deliver the project on time and on budget have been broken yet again? Officials are warning of further delays and more wasted taxpayers’ money, and Ministers are arguing among one another while families and children in Wales live in poverty. What way is this to run a country?

Stephen Crabb: What universal credit represents for the country, including Wales—I think Opposition Members recognise this as well—is a generational opportunity to change the welfare system better to support those who need it. It is exactly right that we take the time necessary to get the systems and processes right to ensure that we get the outcomes right for people in Wales.

Hywel Williams: Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have assured me that the online application process in Welsh will be consistent with the Welsh Language Act 1993. What discussions has the Minister had with DWP colleagues to ensure that it is also consistent with the new Welsh language standards?

Stephen Crabb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I meet regularly Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform, to discuss the impact of the complete welfare reform agenda in Wales. The Welsh language, specifically, is an issue that I have discussed with him. We want to see high-quality Welsh language availability for the people who need it.

Transport Infrastructure

Stephen Mosley: What recent discussions he has had on future investment in transport infrastructure in Wales.

David Jones: This Government are investing more in transport infrastructure in Wales than any other in the last century, and Wales is set to benefit directly and indirectly from almost £2 billion of investment. I will be meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport next week to see how we can take this investment further.

Stephen Mosley: Like me, the Secretary of State is a regular user of the Holyhead branch of the west coast main line. The Department for Transport is setting up a taskforce to look at electrification of the line between Crewe and Chester. Does he agree that the taskforce should look beyond Chester and consider electrifying the north Wales main line?

David Jones: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The proposed hub for High Speed 2 at Crewe would considerably strengthen the case for electrification of the railway line beyond Crewe and, I would hope, as far as Holyhead.

Kevin Brennan: One of the most important pieces of transport infrastructure for Wales is the Severn bridge. After decades, tolls have now gone up again: £6.40 for motorists, and double and treble that for vans and lorries. Is it not time to recognise, after all these decades, that this tax on the south Wales economy is a toll too far?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman will know that the franchise of Severn crossings will continue until 2017-18. After that, the maintenance of the bridge will have to be considered, but I know that the Department for Transport is keenly aware of the issues he raises.

Karen Lumley: Good transport links are essential to provide opportunities for investment into Wales. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on updating road and rail links into north Wales, especially upgrading the A55?

David Jones: I have regular discussions with both the Welsh Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on this issue. A business case is already being worked up, I hope, for electrification of the north Wales coast line, and I have already referred to the issue of roads.

Mark Tami: When it comes to the Wrexham-Bidston line, the Secretary of State is all talk and no action. When can we expect some action?

David Jones: It is rather rich of the hon. Gentleman to say that. In 13 years, his Government did absolutely nothing about that line. He should be aware that we already have a taskforce looking at this issue, and I hope the business case will be developed shortly.

Tourism

Paul Flynn: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on increasing tourism opportunities in Newport in the light of the NATO summit in Celtic Manor in 2014.

David Jones: Hosting the NATO summit in Newport later this year allows us to showcase Wales on a global stage, and I—and the First Minister, I am sure—will do everything possible to ensure that Wales capitalises on the tourism opportunities it should bring.

Paul Flynn: The delegates will be guests in what is probably the best hotel in Britain, the Celtic Manor. Will they have the chance to visit the other major attractions of Newport—the Roman remains at Caerleon, the magnificent transporter bridge and the splendid Tredegar house—so that they can have a rich and unforgettable experience in Newport?

David Jones: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that Newport—and, indeed, the whole of south-east Wales—has a huge amount to offer. As I have said, I believe that the NATO summit will do a massive amount to showcase that part of Wales to the whole world.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Simon Burns: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 January.

David Cameron: Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay some brief tributes. Captain Richard Holloway of the Royal Engineers was tragically killed after being engaged by enemy fire in Afghanistan on 23 December. He was a highly respected soldier, and our deepest sympathies and condolences should be with his parents, brother and girlfriend, whom he left behind. Our thoughts should also go to the victims of the US helicopter crash in Norfolk, about which details are still emerging.
	I know that the sudden death this morning of Paul Goggins, MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East, will have shocked everyone across the House. He was a kind, brilliant man who believed profoundly in public service. He cared deeply about the welfare of children and the importance of social work, and he brought his own clear experience to bear as an MP and Minister. He did vital work as a Northern Ireland Minister, playing a quiet but essential role in delivering the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, particularly at the Hillsborough castle talks. He was liked and admired across the House and always treated everyone, in whatever circumstances, with respect. He will be greatly missed, and we send our condolences to his wife Wyn, his children and his family.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Simon Burns: I am sure the House will want to be associated with my right hon. Friend’s comments. In particular, Paul Goggins was a good and decent man, and I know that he will be sorely missed on both sides of the House.
	Yesterday, the British Chambers of Commerce found that manufacturing exports and services were growing strongly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that, even though more work needs to be done, it is crucial that the Government stick to their long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, including those about Paul Goggins.
	It is a welcome report from the British Chambers of Commerce, but there is still a lot more work to do: we must continue to reduce the deficit, create economic growth and get more people into work. There should not be one ounce of complacency, but the report did find that manufacturing balances were at an all-time high, that exports were up and that services were growing strongly. If we stick to this plan, we can see this country rise, and our people rise with it too.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Richard Holloway of the Royal Engineers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan. His death, just two days before Christmas, is a reminder of the risks being taken on our behalf every day by members of our armed forces. He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and all our sympathies are with his family and friends. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in sending condolences to the families of the victims of the US helicopter crash in Norfolk.
	I want to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Paul Goggins. He was one of the kindest, most decent people in the House, and he was someone of the deepest principle. It shone throughout his career, as social worker, councillor, MP and Minister, and it is a measure of the man and his ability that he earned the respect, trust and affection of all sides in Northern Ireland. The Labour party has lost one of its own and one of its best. Our deepest condolences go to his wife, Wyn, to his children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic, and indeed to his whole family.
	The whole country will be concerned about the price being paid by those in communities affected by the floods and storms. I pay tribute to the work of the emergency services. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the number of people affected and on what action is being taken now to ensure areas that could be affected by further flooding have all the necessary support?

David Cameron: First, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very moving words about Paul Goggins.
	The flooding provides an extremely difficult situation for those affected. We should remember that seven people have lost their lives since this began. The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the emergency services, to the Environment Agency workers, to the flood wardens and to the many neighbours and individuals who showed great bravery, courage and spirit over the Christmas period in helping neighbours and friends.
	As the situation is ongoing, let me bring the House up to date with the latest detail. There are currently 104 flood warnings in place across the whole of England and Wales. That means, sadly, that more flooding is expected and that immediate action is required. There are also 186 flood alerts, which means even further flooding is possible beyond what we expect to happen
	more rapidly. Although the weather has improved, river and groundwater levels remain so high that further flooding could come at relatively short notice. There are a number of particular concerns, including Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Somerset and Oxfordshire. Given these ongoing threats, which could last for several days to come, I urge members of the public to keep following the advice of the emergency services and the Environment Agency in those areas at risk. At a national level, we have co-ordinated this response via Cobra, which will continue to meet under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs until the threat has passed.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I know he and the Environment Secretary will keep us updated. He will recognise that some people felt that the response was, at times, too slow. In particular, will he explain whether it has become clear why it took so long for some of the energy distribution companies to restore power to homes over the Christmas period? What steps does he believe can be taken to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen again?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: in all these circumstances, no matter how good the preparation, there are always lessons to learn—and there are lessons to learn on this occasion. On the positive side, the Environment Agency warning service worked better than it has in the past and the flood defences protected up to a million homes over the December and Christmas period, but there are some negatives, too, and we need to learn lessons from them. In particular, some of the energy companies did not have enough people available over the holiday period for an emergency response, which I saw for myself in Kent. We need to learn those lessons, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy will lead this exercise. The Energy Secretary is already looking at the levels of compensation and at the preparedness and speed of response from energy companies. I would, however, welcome hearing from Members of all constituencies affected by the flooding what they saw on the ground about the lessons that could be learned so that we can ensure that preparedness is even better on a future occasion.

Edward Miliband: Given the scale of risk exposed by these floods and the expected impact of climate change, will the Prime Minister also commit to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs providing a report by the end of this month, providing a full assessment of the future capability of our flood defences and flood response agencies and of whether the investment plans in place are equal to the need for events of this kind?

David Cameron: I am very happy to make that commitment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in this current four-year period, we are spending £2.3 billion, compared with £2.1 billion in the previous period. The money is going into flood defences. As I said, in the early December flooding, about 800,000 homes were protected by previous flood defence work and over the Christmas period a further 200,000 houses were affected. Whenever there is flooding, it makes sense to look again at the proposals in the programme for flood defence work and to see what more can be done. In addition to
	Government money, we are keen to lever in more private sector and local authority money, which is now possible under the arrangements. I am happy to commit, as the right hon. Gentleman asked for, to the Environment Secretary coming back to report to the House on the level of expenditure in the years going ahead.

Tobias Ellwood: Further to the Prime Minister’s remarks on the recent flooding, will he join me in paying tribute to Bournemouth borough council and Dorset emergency services, as well as local residents, in dealing with two evacuations in my constituency, one of which, owing to the River Stour bursting its banks, is still ongoing? Given the changing weather patterns we are experiencing, what more can be done in the long term towards improving river and sea defences?

David Cameron: As my hon. Friend knows, 290 homes have been flooded so far in Bournemouth and the Dorset area. I agree with him that the work of the emergency services and the Environment Agency has been excellent. Many local authorities, including my own, have developed very good plans and carried them out very competently. However, not every authority is doing so well, and there will be lessons to be learnt.
	As for the Bournemouth and Poole area, about £14 million will be invested over the next five years under the Bournemouth beach management scheme. That should protect about 2,500 properties by 2018-2019, but I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend what more he thinks can be done.

Diane Abbott: The Prime Minister will be aware that the majority of new housing benefit claimants are in work. He will also be aware that private sector landlords are increasingly refusing to take tenants who are on benefit, or are evicting them. What does he say to hard-working families who face losing their homes because of his housing benefit cuts?

David Cameron: What we say to hard-working families is, “We are cutting your taxes.” In April this year, we will raise to £10,000 the amount of money that people can earn before they start paying income tax, and I think that that will make a big difference. For instance, someone earning the minimum wage and working a 40-hour week will see his or her tax bill fall by two thirds.
	However, we must take action to deal with the housing benefit bill. Housing benefit now accounts for £23 billion of Government spending. When we came to office, some families in London were receiving housing benefit payments of £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] Members shout “How many?” Frankly, one was too many, and that is why we have capped housing benefit.

George Hollingbery: If the Government decided to mitigate the scale of the cuts that they plan for the next Parliament, can my right hon. Friend tell me how I would explain to the students in Meon Valley receiving personal, social, health and economic education why they should make
	every effort to spend within their means to avoid taking on debt, but it is quite all right for the Government to ignore the same advice?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has made an important point. We have made difficult decisions to get the deficit down and to get the country back on track: difficult decisions in terms of departmental spending, and also welfare. The Labour party is now back where it started: Labour Members are saying that they want to mitigate the level of cuts, and therefore they want to spend more, they want to borrow more and they want to tax more. We may be at the beginning of a new year, but they have gone completely back to where they were three years ago.

Edward Miliband: Does the Prime Minister recognise the concern of families and communities about the impact of fixed odds betting terminals, gaming machines on which people can gamble up to £300 a minute on our high streets?

David Cameron: I absolutely share the concern about that issue, and I welcome the fact that we shall be debating it in the House today. There are problems in the betting and gaming industry, and we need to look at them. I think it is worth listening to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman’s own shadow Minister who said
	“I accept the argument that empirical evidence is needed before making”
	any changes,
	“because it might just create another problem somewhere else”.—[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 November 2013; c. 8.]
	However, this is a problem, and it does need to be looked at. We have a review under way. We are clearing up a situation that was put in place under the last Government, but I think that if we work together, we can probably sort it out.

Edward Miliband: The Gambling Act 2005 limited the number of machines to four per betting shop, but it did not go nearly far enough. More action should have been taken. The Prime Minister asked about evidence. Local communities from Fareham to Liverpool are saying that these machines are causing problems for families and communities. Local communities believe that they already have the evidence. Should they not be given the power to decide whether or not they want these machines?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point, but let me first deal with the facts. The first fact is that fixed odds betting terminals were introduced in 2001 after the Labour Government had relaxed gambling regulations. The second fact is that there are fewer of these machines now than there were when Labour was in office. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, councils already have powers to tackle the issue, and I believe that they should make full use of those powers. I am not arguing that that is “job done”—there may well be more to do— but we have a review under way. This is an issue for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If the right hon. Gentleman has ideas, I ask him to put them into the review, but, as I
	said earlier, he may want to listen to his own shadow Minister, who, as recently as November, said
	“there is no evidence to support a change to stakes and prizes for FOBTs”. —[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 November 2013; c. 20.]
	There seems to be something of a change here, but if the right hon. Gentleman has extra evidence, he should put it into our review, and I think that we can then sort the matter out.

Edward Miliband: Our ideas are in today’s motion, and if the Prime Minister wants to vote for it, we would be very happy for him to do so. He says there are already powers in place, but the Mayor of London and the Conservative head of the Local Government Association have said that local authorities do not have the power to limit the number of machines. One in three calls to the gambling helpline are about these machines and they are clustered in deprived areas. For example, there are 348 in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country: Newham. Can the Prime Minister at least give us a timetable for when the Government will decide whether to act?

David Cameron: We will be reporting in the spring as a result of the review that is under way, and I think it is important that we get to grips with this. There is something of a pattern. We had the problem of 24-hour drinking, and that needed to be changed and mitigated and we have done that. We have the problems created by the deregulation of betting and gaming, which the right hon. Gentleman is raising today and we need to sort that out. We have also had problems, of course, in the banking industry and elsewhere that we have sorted out, so, as I said, if he wants to—[Interruption.] As I said, if he wants to input ideas into that review, I think that is the right way forward.

Anne McIntosh: May I pay tribute to Paul Goggins and say how much he will be missed in this House?
	My right hon. Friend is on the record as saying he would very much like to see the A64 on the future roads list. Can he ensure that the present economy, which is very buoyant in north Yorkshire, is not held back by congestion and poor safety on that road? Will he join me to ensure that on his future visits he can travel much faster and in much greater safety on the A64?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The quality and capacity of the road system in Yorkshire has been, and is, a major issue. The Government have taken some important steps to help, but I know there is more work to be done. I know the Chancellor was listening carefully to what she had to say and I am sure we can look carefully at this for the future roads programme.

Katy Clark: What plans do the Government have to close the loophole that allows businesses to pay agency workers less than fellow employees doing the same job?

David Cameron: I looked into this loophole carefully over the Christmas period when the Opposition raised it, and I discovered two things about this loophole. The
	first is that it was introduced and agreed by the last Labour Government and the TUC. That is loophole fact No. 1. Loophole fact No. 2—

Andrew Miller: The CBI.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman shouts “CBI”, and this is what the CBI had to say about it:
	“further gold plating of EU rules can only cost jobs.”
	Then we have the Recruitment and Employment Federation. It said this:
	“These arrangements were agreed following consultation between the last Labour Government, business and the unions…Is the Labour party really saying they want to deny British temps the option of permanent employment?”
	The Institute of Directors has, of course, added to that by saying—[Interruption.] It is very clear, Mr Speaker: Opposition Members want to know what we think about this, and this is what the IOD thinks:
	“It’s a bad idea all round…The initial response to this from employers would be to employ fewer people on higher wages”.
	What a great start to the new year: let us come up with an idea to increase unemployment! Only Labour could come up with an idea like that.

Penny Mordaunt: There is considerable interest from businesses in the maritime and marine sector wishing to relocate to Portsmouth to make use of its facilities and skilled work force. What can the Government do to send a clear message to entrepreneurs that Portsmouth is open for businesses and to facilitate businesses moving to, and expanding, there?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. There are two specific things we can do to help Portsmouth at this time. The first is the Portsmouth and Southampton city deal, which we should put in place, that will bring jobs and investment. Secondly, we should emphasise the fact that the massive programme of modernising the Royal Navy, with the aircraft carriers, the Type 45s and the future frigates, will by and large be based in Portsmouth, creating jobs and making sure it remains one of the most important homes for the Royal Navy. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: added to that there is a future in Portsmouth in other marine industries and commercial and private sector industries, and we should do everything we can to encourage business to locate there.

Debbie Abrahams: I would also like to pay my sympathies to Paul Goggins’s family; he was a lovely, lovely man. The Government have cut £1.8 billion from the social care budget, which means nearly half a million fewer people are eligible for social care. With home care charges up £740 a year since 2010 and the Government’s care cap nothing more than a care con, why is the Prime Minister not being honest with older people about the real care costs they will face under this Government?

David Cameron: Of course, difficult decisions have had to be taken right across Government spending, but if we look at health and social care, we can see that
	we have protected the health budget so that it is going up in real terms, and we have put some of that health budget—up to £3 billion—into social care to help local authorities. We now want to get local authorities and local health services working even more closely together to deal with the problems of blocked beds and to ensure that there are care packages for people when they leave hospital. We can really see the benefits in the areas of the country where this is working, and we want to make that happen right across the country.

Cheryl Gillan: Mr Speaker, our excellent local enterprise partnership estimates that Buckinghamshire has a £12 billion economy, with nearly 30,000 registered businesses and the European head offices of more than 700 foreign companies. They need the security of long-term economic policies. Given that our economic growth has clearly returned, will the Prime Minister assure me that, unlike the Labour party, he will not gamble with those companies’ future and that he will stick steadfastly to his tried and tested long-term economic policies?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she says. There is a vibrant economy right across the Thames valley, including in Buckinghamshire, and that is going to be based on sticking to our long-term economic plan. What is particularly important for the companies that she has mentioned is to keep our rates of corporate tax low so that we attract businesses into the country and ensure that companies want to have their headquarters here. That is the right answer, rather than the answer of the Labour party, which is to put up corporation tax and to put a “Closed” sign over the British economy.

Nick Smith: A year ago, the Prime Minister said that he would make “damn sure” that foreign companies paid higher taxes, but in the Financial Times at the weekend, it was shown that companies such as Apple and eBay were now paying even less. Why is the Prime Minister’s tough talk not adding up to very much?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair; I think we are making progress on this very difficult issue. At the G8, we raised the importance of having international rules on tax reporting and of more countries working together on that. Huge progress has been made, not least in the European Union, where countries such as Luxembourg and Austria, which have always held out against this exchange of information, are now taking part for the first time. The OECD work is also going ahead apace, and that is partly because Britain has put its full efforts behind this vital work.

Tim Farron: Paul Goggins was a decent, humble man and, in my experience, one of the most effective and fair Ministers the House has seen. He will be very sadly missed.
	The Prime Minister will know that the science is clear that the extreme weather conditions affecting our communities, including around the Kent estuary in Westmorland, are at least in part a destructive and inevitable consequence of climate change. Given that he has said that this should be the “greenest Government
	ever”, will he now agree to support the carbon reduction targets so that we can take real action to protect people and property?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend that we are seeing more abnormal weather events. Colleagues across the House can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not; I very much suspect that it is. The point is that, whatever one’s view, it makes sense to invest in flood defences and mitigation and to get information out better, and we should do all of those things. As for carbon reduction targets, this Government are committed to them and we worked with the last Government to put the Climate Change Act 2008 into place. That would not have happened without our support. We also have the green investment bank up and running in Edinburgh, and we are going to be investing billions of pounds in important green projects.

John Mann: Government cuts have closed the police cells in Bassetlaw, and I now discover that the police are having to patrol villages using public transport. If the police are waiting at a bus stop, having arrested someone, should they go upstairs, should they go downstairs, or should they not make the arrest at all?

David Cameron: The first thing to say to the hon. Gentleman is that he did not mention the fact that recorded crime in the Bassetlaw community safety partnership area is down by 27% under this Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, 27%. What is noticeable is that every single Opposition Member is getting up and complaining about the need to make reductions in departmental spending. Frankly, this is like “Back to the Future”—we are back to where we were three years ago, when we said, “You’ve got to make difficult decisions. You’ve got to make some cuts. You’ve got to get the deficit down” and they lived in total denial. They are back to where they were three years ago. It may be the new year, but it is the same old Labour party.

Iain Stewart: The royal pardon granted to Alan Turing two weeks ago has finally meant justice for this national hero. May I thank the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and everyone over the years who has paved the way to bring this about? May I invite the Prime Minister to visit Bletchley Park in my constituency to see for himself Alan Turing’s remarkable achievements?

David Cameron: I absolutely back what my hon. Friend has said. It is excellent news that a royal prerogative mercy, which is very rarely granted, has been granted in this very special case. I would be delighted to visit his constituency to go to Bletchley Park. One of my wife’s family worked there during the war and speaks incredibly highly of what Alan Turing was like and what he was like to work with. Historians can argue about the degree, but there is no doubt that the work done in my hon. Friend’s constituency was vital to winning the war.

Paul Blomfield: Before Christmas, I was contacted by a seriously ill constituent who is waiting for a kidney transplant. He needs five-hour dialysis sessions three times a week, yet in the Prime Minister’s Britain he has been told by the
	jobcentre that he is fit for work. On Monday, the Chancellor promised to take £12 billion more from the welfare budget. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no further cuts to benefits for the sick and disabled?

David Cameron: First, on the specific issue of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, if he wants to write to me about the individual case, I would be happy to look at that. In terms of making sure that dialysis machines are available and the expertise is available, we are putting more money into the NHS, even though the advice from the Labour party was to cut. The reason we have been able to put more money into the health service is because we have taken tough and difficult decisions about welfare. It is because we have put a cap on the amount of money a family can get that we have been able to invest in our health service; because we have put a cap on housing benefit—not giving £60,000 or £70,000 to some families—we have invested in our health service. We want to see more dignity, more security and more stability in the lives of Britain’s families, and we are making choices consistent with that.

Dan Byles: Soaring car sales—they are back to pre-crisis levels—have helped supply chain companies such as Sertec in Coleshill in my constituency to create manufacturing jobs; 200 have been created in the past year, and a further 400 are planned. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows that we are successfully rebalancing the economy and that we need to stay the course with policies that are clearly working?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I went with him to the opening of the new Ocado warehouse in his constituency, which has generated hundreds of jobs and, as he says, is going to be vital for the supply chain in his constituency. What these businesses want to see is a consistent economic policy: keeping interest rates down; getting the deficit down; cutting taxes for hard-working people; helping businesses to take more people on; and investing in education, in skills and in controlling welfare. Those are the elements of our long-term plan, and that is what we will stick to.

Tom Blenkinsop: Two months ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether Tory Councillor Abdul Aziz, who was suspended by the Labour party, should return to Pakistan, given the arrest warrant out for him in connection to a brutal killing. Councillor Aziz attended the Prime Minister’s party in October as an invited guest. So why is the Prime Minister still hiding on whether he thinks Councillor Aziz should return to face justice?

David Cameron: I will make two points to the hon. Gentleman, and I have written to him this morning. The first is this—[Interruption.] He will be interested to hear. The first is that the allegations he mentions are disputed and are currently subject to legal action, so I am limited in what I can say. But what he failed to mention to the House the last time he raised this is that the allegations date from the time when Mr Aziz was a Labour councillor. I am informed that during his time
	as a Labour councillor the Labour party did absolutely nothing about these allegations. So perhaps next time the hon. Gentleman stands up and asks a question in the House of Commons he will give us the full facts.

Robert Buckland: May I associate myself with the tributes to Paul Goggins? His work on the reform of the law on child neglect will go on. Last year, one of my constituents, 23-year-old Christopher Scott, died as a result of taking the so-called legal high AMT—alpha-methyltryptamine. Will my right hon. Friend support my calls and those of the coroner and Christopher’s family to ensure that this dangerous drug and others like it are outlawed?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. First, let me offer my condolences to his constituent’s family. As he knows with the rules that we have, hundreds of legal highs have already been banned, and our temporary drug orders allow us to outlaw substances within days of them coming on the market. However, we are not complacent and we have asked the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs to renew our definitions of controlled drugs to ensure that we capture these newly emerging substances when there is evidence of harm. There is more work to be done here, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is absolutely on it.

Nigel Dodds: May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying warm tribute to Paul Goggins? He was a fine, decent and honourable man who was a great friend to Northern Ireland and all its people. He will be sadly missed not only in this House but throughout Northern Ireland. We offer our sincere condolences to his wife and family at this difficult time.
	I commend the Prime Minister and welcome the fact that he has made a commitment on the triple-lock guarantee for pensioners if he is returned as Prime Minister in the next Parliament in 2015. Will he clarify whether he will commit to retaining the winter fuel allowance under its current eligibility thresholds and as a universal benefit?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Paul Goggins.
	On the issue of pensions, it is important to recognise that we are able to make a commitment to the triple lock, which has been important in this Parliament, only because we are committed to raising the pension age to 66, then 67 and so on. That means that the pension increase is affordable. We made a very clear pledge about pensioner benefits for this Parliament, and I am proud of the fact that we are fulfilling it. We will set out our plans in the next manifesto. I caution people about the belief that somehow not paying, for instance, the winter fuel allowance or the other benefits to those, for instance, paying tax at 40p, saves money—you save a very small amount of money. Yes of course we will set out our plans in the manifesto, but it is absolutely vital that we say to Britain’s pensioners, “You have worked hard and done the right thing, and we want to give you dignity and security in old age.” The triple lock makes that possible.

Alan Beith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Thrunton in my constituency, there has been a large fire of waste carpet burning since 3 September last year? The local residents have been suffering from the fumes and smoke from what we now know may be hazardous waste. The fire brigade cannot put out the fire for fear of polluting the water supply. Can I have my right hon. Friend’s support in urging the Environment Agency and the local authority to get that material off the site and to give residents back their lives?

David Cameron: I will certainly look in even more detail at the issues my right hon. Friend raises. I understand the concern that it is causing him and his constituents. My understanding is that environmental concerns, particularly that waste might run off and pollute local water supplies, have hampered the efforts to extinguish the fire. I understand that the local recovery group is meeting later this week to see what more can be done to remove the waste, and I am happy to intervene on my right hon. Friend’s behalf to ensure that that makes progress.

Angus Robertson: Given that the Prime Minister’s anti-independence campaign launched an initiative this week, encouraging people outside Scotland to take part in the debate, why will he not debate with the First Minister on television?

David Cameron: The calls for this debate show a mounting frustration among those wanting Scotland’s separation from the rest of the United Kingdom, because they know they are losing the argument. They are losing the argument about jobs and investment. They have completely lost the argument about the future of the pound sterling, and they are losing the argument about Europe. Yes of course there should be a debate, but it is a debate among the people in Scotland. The leader of the “in” campaign should debate with the leader of the “out” campaign. Of course the hon. Gentleman, as the lackey of Alex Salmond, wants to change the terms of the debate, but I am not falling for that one.

James Clappison: In the 13 years before 2010, there was net migration of nearly 4 million people to the UK, mostly to England, and in many cases as a result of work permits issued by the then Government. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that this Government will keep in place their cap on the number of workers from outside the European Union, and encourage employers to give a chance to talented young people here?

David Cameron: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. We should keep the cap on economic migrants from outside the European Union. We should continue with all the action that we are taking to make sure that people who come here do so to work and not
	to claim, but I think what we need to do next is recognise that the best immigration policy is to have not only strong border controls but an education approach that educates our young people for jobs in our country and a welfare system that encourages them to take those jobs. There are three sides to the argument: it is about immigration, education and welfare, and the Government have a plan for all three.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Ian Davidson.

Ian Davidson: Could I agree with the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] It is genuinely absurd that the leader of the no campaign in Scotland cannot get a debate with the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland, and that the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland demands a debate with somebody who does not have a vote. [Interruption.] In these circumstances, does the Prime Minister agree with me that, in politics as in shipbuilding, empty vessels make the most noise?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

David Cameron: rose—

Ian Davidson: I am not finished! [Hon. Members: “More!] There is more. Without seeking to give offence to the Prime Minister, may I tell him that the last person Scots who support the no campaign want as their representative is a Tory toff from the home counties, even one with a fine haircut?

David Cameron: I accept every part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. I well remember when he came to Question Time not with an empty vessel but with a model of the vessel that he wanted to be built near his constituency, and I am proud that the Government are building that vessel and, indeed, another one like it. I humbly accept that, while I am sure there are many people in Scotland who would like to hear me talk about this issue, my appeal does not stretch to every single part. The key point that he is making is absolutely right: the reason the yes campaign head and the no campaign head cannot seem to get a debate is that those who want to break up the United Kingdom know that they are losing the argument, so they want to change the question. It is the oldest trick in the book, and we can all see it coming.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will have to raise his point of order after the statement.

Haass Talks

Theresa Villiers: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the cross-party negotiations in Belfast that came to a close during the early hours of new year’s eve, but first I would like to express my sorrow at the news that Paul Goggins has died. He was a truly excellent and effective Northern Ireland Minister and I have to say one of the kindest, most sincere and most popular Members of this House. He will be much missed, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy and support to his family as they deal with this shocking loss.
	Last May, the First and Deputy First Ministers announced a working group consisting of representatives from each of the five parties in the Executive to look at three of the most divisive issues for Northern Ireland: flags, parading and the legacy of the past. The initiative formed a key element of wider proposals to tackle sectarianism set out in the Executive’s strategy document, “Together: Building a United Community”. In July, former US diplomat Richard Haass agreed to chair the group. He served as the US special envoy to Northern Ireland from 2001 to 2003. Along with his deputy, Professor Meghan O’Sullivan, Dr Haass began work in September with the aim of reaching agreement by the end of the year.
	From the outset, the UK Government, along with the Irish Government and the US Administration, have strongly supported the Haass process. We welcomed the fact that it was the parties within Northern Ireland that had taken the initiative in seeking progress on these complex and difficult issues as part of the work that the Government had strongly pressed them to take forward on building a shared society and addressing sectarian division.
	All three of the issues under consideration in the Haass group have the capacity sharply to divide opinion in Northern Ireland. Repeated attempts to deal with the past have produced little consensus up to now, while disputes over parading and flags have frequently led to serious public disorder. Some form of accommodation on those issues that commands cross-party support could therefore have significant benefits for political stability, public order and economic prosperity in Northern Ireland.
	Although the UK Government were never formally a participant in the Haass process, we have been fully engaged with it from the start. I had a significant number of meetings with Dr Haass and my officials remained in frequent contact with his team. During the latter stages of the talks, I spoke regularly with Dr Haass, as I did with the leaders of Northern Ireland’s political parties and the Irish Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore. The Prime Minister also maintained a close interest in the process. We worked to encourage an agreement, even where that meant the parties making difficult decisions to try to move things forward.
	The Haass process reached its final, intensive phase of negotiation in the days before Christmas and between Christmas and the new year, when a number of drafts were circulated, the final one being presented to the parties shortly after midnight on the morning of
	31 December. It proposed a new set of arrangements for regulating parades and protests, with responsibility vested for the first time in devolved hands. On flags and emblems there was no immediate resolution, but the document advocated the establishment of a new commission to look at wider issues of identity, culture and tradition in Northern Ireland. On the past, Dr Haass proposed two new bodies: an historical investigations unit, in place of the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Historical Enquiries Team, to investigate troubles-related deaths; and an independent commission on information recovery.
	It was of course disappointing that it did not prove possible to reach a comprehensive agreement within the timetable Dr Haass set, and it is clear that some of the parties have genuine concerns about aspects of what is in the final document, yet the clear message from the Prime Minister, from me and from the Irish Government is that this should not be seen as the end of the road.
	The Haass process has seen much valuable work done and some real progress has been made. The discussions managed to achieve a considerable amount of common ground, which this Government believe can provide the basis for continuing discussions between the parties. From my many conversations with the parties, I have no doubt that there is a willingness to make progress on the issues that continue to be a focus for tension and division.
	The momentum now needs to be maintained. I believe that Northern Ireland’s political leadership should lose no time in seeking a way forward that gets the parties back around the table to try to resolve their outstanding differences. For our part, the Government are continuing our dialogue with the parties and with the Irish Government to see how best we can help facilitate that. I firmly believe that there is still a chance to achieve a successful outcome from the work started by Dr Haass, and I have been speaking with party leaders to discuss the next steps.
	At the same time, it is important that we do not lose sight of other important tasks for Northern Ireland, such as the need to continue to make progress on implementing the economic pact and boosting the economy, to take forward a range of measures to build a shared future and to move ahead with welfare reforms.
	Finally, I would like to place on the record both the Prime Minister’s and my thanks to Dr Haass, Professor O’Sullivan and their team for the dedication they have brought to chairing the talks. I very much hope that,working together,we can now build on the valuable work that they have started.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for giving me advance sight of a copy. May I also thank her for her kind words about Paul Goggins? I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will understand that I want to begin with a few words about my colleague but, more importantly, good friend, Paul.
	Paul served with distinction as a Minister in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, he earned the respect of politicians, officials and community activists alike for his knowledge
	and empathy. He continued to take a close interest in all things Northern Ireland, and I know from my discussions with him that he had grown to love Northern Ireland.
	But Paul was a lot more than an outstanding Minister. He was a man whose integrity, decency and values, rooted in a strong Christian faith, shone through in everything he did. He treated everyone with the same dignity and respect, whether a Prime Minister or a constituent living on one of the poorest council estates in Wythenshawe.
	Paul and I had a special bond, for many years an affliction, of being avid Manchester City fans. We even set up the Westminster branch of the Manchester City supporters club together.
	I will never forget Paul’s loyalty and friendship through the ups and downs of our shared political journey. He will be missed more than words can adequately express. Our thoughts and prayers are with Wyn and his children.
	I pay tribute to Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan for their professionalism and commitment in striving for a positive way forward on some of the most challenging issues facing Northern Ireland. Flags, parades and dealing with the past are running sores that continue to inhibit progress towards the priority objective of building a shared and better future. They have to be tackled in a way that respects the insecurity and sensitivities of both traditions while balancing strong convictions with necessary compromises.
	It would be wrong not to acknowledge that the failure of the Haass talks to reach a final agreement was both disappointing and potentially damaging to public confidence in Northern Ireland’s politicians and the political process. However, it is important that we retain a sense of perspective and that all parties in Northern Ireland refrain from name-calling or engaging in a blame game. Significant advances were made that can form the basis of future progress, as the Secretary of State said. That is particularly the case in relation to dealing with the past, where victims’ groups deserve tremendous credit for submissions that were coherent and compelling.
	We want to see all parties back round the negotiating table as soon as possible with a shared commitment to working together on shared solutions. The UK and Irish Governments have a crucial role to play, not only as guarantors of the peace process but because of the legislative and financial implications that would flow from any agreement.
	In that context, I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. What dialogue is taking place between her and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the potential legislation that will be required to implement any agreement? What discussions has she had with her counterparts in the Irish Government about the financial implications of a new infrastructure to deal with the past? Can she explain why, at this sensitive time, she has weakened the capacity of the newly appointed Parades Commission by reducing the number of commissioners and the number of hours that each commissioner will be expected to work? While I acknowledge her contribution during the course of the Haass talks, does she understand that at this time of uncertainty the widespread perception of disengagement by the UK Government is causing concern across a wide spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland, and that
	this needs to change? Finally, does she acknowledge the negative impact that some of the welfare reforms mentioned in her speech, particularly the pernicious bedroom tax, would have on people in Northern Ireland?
	Northern Ireland has made tremendous progress over the past 15 years. This has been possible only because of the determination of people to build a better future for themselves and their families—but it is also thanks to the vision and courage of Northern Ireland’s political leaders. There will be no turning back, but there can be no standing still. That is why we hope that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will convene an all-party working group as soon as possible and ensure that the progress that has been made can be consolidated in an agreement that attracts widespread public support but will also stand the test of time.

Theresa Villiers: I echo and thank the shadow Secretary of State for his words on Paul Goggins. Paul’s example is one with which to counter the cynicism about MPs and about politicians, because he illustrated such a strong commitment to decency, integrity and public service. I also strongly echo the shadow Secretary of State’s point that Paul retained a genuine affection for Northern Ireland. He cared deeply about it, I am sure, when he was a Minister, and it was clear that he still did so in his discussions with me as Secretary of State some time after he had ceased to be a Minister. He had strong values, which I am sure were a great support to him in his work in this House and in Northern Ireland.
	The shadow Secretary of State’s remarks illustrate that there is a lot of common ground between Front Benchers on a way forward. I agree that getting the parties together and back around the table in a working group to try to resolve the differences between them is the right way forward. That is what I have been urging the political parties to do. I also agree that an eventual solution needs to respect the sensitivities of the different traditions, but that it must also involve compromise on all sides.
	It is important to recognise the progress made on the past, which is a particularly difficult issue for all of us, including, in some ways, the UK Government. I believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, that the voice of victims and survivors played a very positive role in taking things forward and that any eventual solution must place victims and survivors at its heart.
	The shadow Secretary of State asked about the dialogue between me and the First and Deputy First Ministers. I have spoken to both of them in recent days to urge that a way forward be found and that the working group commence.
	The legislation to implement what would be needed from the Haass proposals would come primarily through the Assembly and the Executive. The part this House would play would be, potentially, the devolution of parading. The mechanics of setting up the new bodies would be a matter for the Assembly and the Executive.
	I have kept in close touch with Eamon Gilmore and the Irish Government—both before and after the talks broke up—on matters relating to the past and all the other issues under discussion in this process, including a discussion on finances. It is very clear that the UK Government face a significant deficit, which means that we have to take care with public spending. We expect
	the primary resource for the new mechanisms to be found from within the block grant to Northern Ireland, but we will, of course, always consider further applications for funding from the Northern Ireland Executive if they wish to press ahead with the measures. We will, however, be constrained in what we can offer by the need to tackle the deficit we inherited.
	On reducing the number of commissioners, I strongly believe that we have a strong new Parades Commission that will do important work in the months to come. I am sure we all hope that a reformed system will take over in the devolved space if the agreements are eventually signed off by all the parties, but in the meantime I am sure the current Parades Commission will do an excellent job.
	I wholly refute the perception of disengagement by the UK Government. The UK Government are strongly engaged with the Haass process and with Northern Ireland. We brought the G8 to Northern Ireland—one of the most successful events ever for Northern Ireland—and we followed it up with a strong investment conference. We signed an economic pact that sees us working more closely than ever with the devolved Government, including the commitment to meet the £18 billion of capital spending, and we are determined to press ahead with supporting the Executive in their moves on a shared future. We have responded when the Executive have asked us—for example, to devolve air passenger duty for long-haul flights. We stepped in to assist in the grave situation we inherited from Labour with the Presbyterian Mutual Society. We are continuing to work on the devolution of corporation tax. There is a whole range of ways in which this Government are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
	On welfare reform, we will continue our discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, but we believe that the compromises agreed with Minister McCausland are appropriate and will help adapt the welfare reform system to the particular needs of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: As Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, may I join the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family of Paul Goggins, who has so shockingly passed away? He was a thoroughly decent and honourable man. When he was a Minister, I had the pleasure of shadowing him for about three years, and I have to tell the House that he was a very competent Minister. I say without any fear of contradiction that without his contribution I do not think we would be here today at this advanced stage of the Northern Ireland peace process, so highly do I value his work.
	The Secretary of State is, of course, right in saying that it was the Northern Ireland parties that initiated the Haass process. I think Dr Haass was given a rather impossible task of finding quick solutions to problems that have existed for a long time. Is it not important now that those discussions between the parties in Northern Ireland and, furthermore, with community leaders in Northern Ireland continue, because such engagement is as important as any solutions that may come from those discussions?

Theresa Villiers: I agree with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee. Four months was a very tight timetable in which to reach agreement on issues that some would argue have been a problem in Northern Ireland for very many years—some would argue that some of the issues date back hundreds of years in terms of identity. It was always going to be a tough ask to meet that timetable. I agree that the solution now is to resume those discussions between the parties. Although it is clear that some of the parties have expressed concern about the final draft of the Haass proposals, none of them is walking away. They are all saying that the process should continue and they all seem to be prepared to engage in that dialogue. I urge them to do so.

Paul Murphy: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State about Paul Goggins? As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I can testify to the fact that Paul’s work was instrumental in bringing forward both the political and the peace process in Northern Ireland. Like many others in this House, I have lost a good friend.
	Even though the Haass talks have temporarily ended, what is the Secretary of State’s plan to engage her civil servants and Irish civil servants in work on the specific issues that are still a matter of controversy, so that those officials will be able to give advice, wisdom and evidence to the working parties that will soon be set up?

Theresa Villiers: My officials have worked with Irish Government officials throughout the process, just as I have kept up regular contacts at political levels. We also stand ready to provide advice, help and support to the Executive in taking these matters forward. The role of officials will obviously be crucial in coming up with a solution that is workable and practical and that can be implemented.

Stephen Lloyd: I also associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State about Paul Goggins. I did not know him very well, because I was elected only a few years ago, but the intrinsic fairness and kindness he showed me as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland was tremendously helpful.
	On the Haass report, I appreciate the Secretary of State’s statement. We all know that it was very challenging: the Haass commission had about 100 meetings, met 500 people and received 600 submissions. It went into the process very strongly, but we have reached a point where we are stuck on the two or three things that I suspect most Members knew we would be stuck on. Are there any plans to bring Dr Haass and his team back to unlock the logjam at an appropriate time?

Theresa Villiers: In my conversations with Dr Haass I certainly floated the idea that he might come back in January, but that looks unlikely. He has professional commitments that would make it very difficult for him to re-engage in the same way, but I am sure he will continue to take a close interest in matters as they go forward. It is now important for the First and Deputy First Ministers to get the parties together around the table. They got very close to getting over the line in the run-up to the final discussions. Even the leader of
	the Ulster Unionist party was saying that perhaps 80% of what was on the table might be acceptable. Clearly, that party has serious concerns with the proposals, but it is indicating that it will continue to take part. Continuing this dialogue is the way forward.

Nigel Dodds: The breadth and depth of the outpourings of grief and tributes to Paul Goggins are a testament to the integrity and standing of the gentleman. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches will want to add their own personal tributes.
	I join the Secretary of State in thanking Dr Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan. I also thank our own talks team, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), Jonathan Bell—a junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—and Rev. Mervyn Gibson, who put in many hours over the holiday period, along with others in other parties, to try to make progress.
	I welcome what the Secretary of State said in her statement. She will know that, under the terms of reference, it was for the parties themselves to come to an agreement on a set of recommendations. At the final plenary, four of the five parties could not support the final draft from Dr Haass in full, but it remains a necessity to try to make progress and for agreement to be reached among the parties in Northern Ireland. In our view, substantial progress has been made, although we are not there yet and there remain significant problems in certain areas. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said, these issues have been around for many decades, if not centuries.
	I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about the need to continue the process through talks between the parties. Will she do everything possible to ensure that those parties that have indicated an unwillingness to continue to talk to try to resolve these problems come back to the table and join the rest of us in trying to move Northern Ireland forward?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is welcome that the Democratic Unionist party has signalled very strongly that although it has reservations about aspects of the Haass proposals, there is much that it can support and that it wants the process to continue. Of course, as the largest party in the Executive, it will be crucial in taking these matters forward.
	Like the right hon. Gentleman, I want to thank not only Dr Haass and Professor O’Sullivan, but all the participants in the working group. At one stage, Dr Haass told me rather wearily that he had not appreciated that politicians in Northern Ireland were quite so nocturnal. There were certainly many all-night sittings, so the stamina of all those taking part is much appreciated.

Therese Coffey: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for being continuously involved throughout the Haass process. Will she continue to work with the parties, because it is vital for Northern Ireland to get inward investment, and the sight of such public disorder on the issues of parades and flags is perhaps a significant deterrent?

Theresa Villiers: Yes. It is clear that parades in particular, but also flags, have frequently played a part in triggering disgraceful scenes of rioting. If we can build more consensus on those issues, it will have tremendous benefits for the police, who have to deal with public order problems, as well as for inward investment, because few things put off inward investors more than political instability and street violence.

Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether her law-abiding, decent constituents in Chipping Barnet would have accepted the final Haass document, given that it equates victims of terrorism with terrorists, diminishes the role of terrorism right throughout the troubles and seems to many people to have ended up as a very one-sided attempt to change the history of what really went on over the past 30 years?

Theresa Villiers: I would hope that my constituents see the Haass proposals, as I do, as a workable basis for continuing discussions. It is obviously disappointing that the proposals are not yet in a state that means all five parties can sign up to them, but the reality is that getting any kind of solution to these issues will be very difficult.
	The issues about the past, in particular, are very sensitive, not least because of anxieties about whether any process might end up with a disproportionate focus on state activity. We must, however, recognise the efforts made by Dr Haass and the participants in the working group to try to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent processes on the past ending up as one-sided, which is what the hon. Lady is concerned about.

Dan Byles: The Haass discussions took place during a backdrop, in the run-up to Christmas, of increased efforts by dissidents to disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland. What recent discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Chief Constable about the ongoing and future threat from dissidents?

Theresa Villiers: The attacks before Christmas by dissident republicans were disgraceful. It was particularly despicable that they were deliberately aimed at places where people were doing their Christmas shopping or were out for a festive drink, while the attack on commercial targets was deeply unpleasant. The message for these dissident republicans is that they will not succeed. These attacks are utterly pointless. They are disgraceful and they have been condemned almost universally across Northern Ireland. They have no political support and will achieve nothing. I am certain from my many conversations with the Chief Constable, the most recent of which was this morning, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will leave no stone unturned in bringing to justice those responsible for the attacks before Christmas.

Alasdair McDonnell: I, like others, want to express my deep regret and sympathy to Paul Goggins’s family. Paul exhibited many good qualities, if not every good quality, that one would expect to be found in a decent human being—integrity, humility and genuine friendship, as well as a deep sense of social justice, to name but a few. I first met him when he was a Northern Ireland Minister. He was outstanding because of his sheer decency and sheer human qualities, and he played a very positive role, as other hon. Members
	have already said. In time, after I entered the House, he became a firm friend, a trusted source of good advice and a confidante. I have been very moved because, right across the House today, we all miss Paul, and we will miss him even more in future, with his good counsel and his wise advice. To his colleagues, friends and family, I add my condolences and sympathy. It is a sad day for all of us.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s endorsement of the significant progress made in the Haass talks. I express my appreciation for her involvement and that of the Prime Minister in the later stages. The Secretary of State will recall that when the Haass process has been mentioned on previous occasions, I have urged a much greater involvement at an earlier stage by both the British and Irish Governments to ensure a positive outcome and to put in place a determined implementation and legislation programme. The process was not just about the talks themselves and whatever conclusion they came to; there needed to be a major follow-through process, and that is still required.
	I believe that a lot has been achieved—the glass is not half full; it is three-quarters full—but may I now urge the Secretary of State to ensure that her Government engage even more intensively, hands on and proactively with the parties, the Irish Government and Richard Haass and his team, and take the lead to ensure the implementation of the considerable progress that has been made, the initiation of legislation where it is required and the resolution of the outstanding issues?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that I will continue to be very strongly involved with the parties, the Irish Government and Dr Haass, as well as with friends across the Atlantic who have taken a close interest in the process. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my involvement and that of the Prime Minister.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of implementation. Even had there been full agreement on new year’s eve, there would still be a lot of work ahead to turn Dr Haass’s proposals into legislation and into new institutions operating on the ground. The UK Government, the Northern Ireland Office, officials and I are very keen to work on the practical implementation process. Not least because of our current responsibilities in relation to parading, we are very keen and eager to input into the process of implementing any agreement if, as I hope, it can be agreed between the parties.

Bob Stewart: Speaking as someone who has lost friends, and not just soldiers, in Northern Ireland—as have so many friends who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—how can my right hon. Friend balance the competing claims of the requirement to find out what happened to so many people who were cruelly murdered and the requirement to encourage people to come forward, perhaps with limited liability, so that we can find out what happened to the many people who have simply disappeared in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: Clearly, those matters were at the heart of the work of the political parties and Dr Haass. My hon. Friend will be aware that the idea that was floated of a general amnesty was almost universally rejected. The current proposals include a limited immunity, whereby
	to encourage people to take part in the truth recovery process, their representations and statements would not be admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings. That is not to say that subsequent criminal proceedings could not go ahead on the basis of other evidence. It was clear from what was said by pretty much all the political parties and the public reaction to the statement of the Attorney-General that the option of prosecution must be kept alive. The proposals that are on the table do not seek to take that option away.

Naomi Long: May I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the colleagues, friends and family of Paul Goggins? He had an interest in Northern Ireland and a concern for its people that extended far beyond his tenure as Minister of State. That has been clear to me in my work in this House and, previously, as an Assembly Member. He was also a true gentleman. He displayed integrity, generosity and grace in his public service, but also in his private dealings. The House is much poorer for his passing.
	As a participant in the talks process in Northern Ireland, I pay tribute to Dr Richard Haass, Professor Meghan O’Sullivan and their team. They have shown commitment and dedication to the process over the past six months and not just in its latter weeks, when it became incredibly intense. Richard Haass was clear throughout the process that the issue with finding a resolution was not the shortness of time, but the will to make the necessary compromises. Does the Secretary of State agree that any continuation of the process must remain focused on taking the difficult decisions, rather than avoiding them while creating an illusion of activity, if it is to deliver on the hopes that the public have invested in the Haass process?

Theresa Villiers: I agree with the hon. Lady. To achieve success on any of the issues, particularly on the past, compromise is needed. Compromises have sometimes been difficult in the history of Northern Ireland. They will no doubt be difficult on these issues too, including for the UK Government. We are very clear that if the parties are prepared to make compromises to make progress, the UK Government will back them.

Bob Blackman: I associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the late Paul Goggins. He was a man of profound Christian belief and that guided him in his work. That is an example to us all. I add my condolences to his family.
	The Haass talks have reached a stalemate. One of the drawbacks of setting a deadline is that once it has passed, unless agreement has been reached, the impetus can be lost. The advantage of these talks appears to be that they were chaired by an independent organisation that brought true independence and experience to the process. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no plans to introduce a further set of people as independent arbiters of the talks and that every effort will be made to bring back Dr Haass and his team at an appropriate moment when the parties have reflected on the work that has been done?

Theresa Villiers: As I said, I am not sure that Dr Haass is in a position to come back and perform the role of chairman, but I hope that he will continue to engage.
	Introducing another independent chairman is an option for the First and Deputy First Ministers. I am not sure that it is needed at the moment, but it is well worth their consideration. I hope that we have not reached a stalemate. That is not how I would characterise the situation. There is still an opportunity for the political parties to grasp. They can do that by getting back around the table to continue the discussions.

Lady Hermon: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. It is so kind of you. With your permission, I would like to put on the record a personal tribute and a tribute on behalf of my constituents to Paul Goggins. The news of his sudden death was profoundly and deeply shocking not just to this House, his colleagues and most of all his family, but right across Northern Ireland. Paul Goggins had hefty and important responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Office. He was an exceptional Minister, particularly with regard to health and security. It will be widely regretted that he has died at the young age of 60—just 60. However, in those 60 years, he achieved an enormous amount. He has left a very positive legacy in Northern Ireland. As has been mentioned by other right hon. and hon. Members, he had a deep personal Christian faith. He lived that faith in the manner in which he treated everyone, irrespective of their political views or their faith.
	I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that an early opportunity has been taken to report to this House on the Haass talks. I draw attention to the fact that the Secretary of State did not suggest in her statement that if the parties cannot agree among themselves, the British and Irish Governments will impose the Haass proposals on the parties and the people of Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made in Northern Ireland. Will she take this opportunity to reject it clearly and frankly, because that would not be acceptable?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady is right that it would be very difficult to impose a solution from above. I agree with the calls on both Governments to continue to engage, encourage and facilitate. Ultimately, the best way to resolve these issues is through cross-party agreement within Northern Ireland. It was important to give this House the chance to debate the situation at the earliest opportunity so that we could send a strong message of support to Northern Ireland’s political leadership in their endeavours to reach an agreement on these issues, which have caused so much tension over so many years.
	I share the hon. Lady’s sentiments on the shocking nature of the news about Paul Goggins. Even now, a few hours after learning the truth, it is very hard to believe that it has happened. This place will be all the poorer for his absence.

David Rutley: I would like to express my sadness at the passing of Paul Goggins. As a near neighbour, I learned a lot from him and his approach to politics. He was an ardent campaigner and obviously a great Minister, but he was also an outstanding and dedicated parliamentarian. I learned a lot from his approach to tackling the problems faced by victims of mesothelioma and from the way he helped Manchester airport to have a vibrant future. He was an outstanding parliamentarian and he will be missed locally.
	I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out clearly the progress that has been made in the Haass process. Does she agree that, although further progress is required, there must be no let up in the steps to improve economic regeneration in the region?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland by boosting the private sector is crucial. That is why we are pressing ahead with implementing our side of the economic pact. I will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in taking forward their obligations in the economic pact. I am delighted to say that the first tranche of the new capital borrowing powers that have been granted as a result of the pact will in due course support a new shared education campus in Lisanelly, which will give many more children the chance to share part of their education with kids from different community backgrounds and traditions.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: As the Secretary of State will know, 90% of the deaths in Northern Ireland during the troubles were caused by paramilitary and terrorist organisations, and yet much of the focus is on what the state did. We cannot have a process that is disproportionate, that seeks to rewrite the history of the troubles and to sanitise terrorism, and that ignores the needs of the vast majority of innocent victims who were murdered by the terrorists.

Theresa Villiers: I certainly agree that the processes on the past need to be balanced and must recognise the proper attributions of responsibility for the deaths during the troubles. I acknowledge that that is one of the most important things to get right. I am impressed by the degree of progress that has been made by the political parties. They have come a great deal closer to an agreement on the past than I ever expected. I hope that in due course we will reach an agreement and a conclusion on that matter.

Henry Smith: On the proposals perhaps to establish a common flag for all communities representing Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the commission on emblems will operate, and tell us whether there is any time scale for it to report?

Theresa Villiers: The timing envisaged for the commission on identity and flags is around 18 months. I have always thought that there might be scope for the development of new shared emblems, and I hope that that will be considered seriously by the new commission, if it is set up. I genuinely think that there are merits in trying to have a broader conversation with civic society about moving forward on the issues of culture, identity and tradition that have proved so intractable up to now.

Margaret Ritchie: May I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and associate myself with the remarks about the late Paul Goggins? He represented the epitome of compassion, humility, decency and integrity in this House, and during his time as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office.
	On the Haass talks, I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and
	to Alex Attwood and Joe Byrne, who formed a sterling team at the talks on behalf of the SDLP. In view of the compelling need of victims and survivors, it is important that an implementation plan is put in process. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister of State take an active interest in ensuring that immediate discussions take place with the five parties to ensure that legislation, implementation and a resolution are found for those such as two people I talked to last week: one whose father was killed as a result of the activities of the military reaction force; and a widow whose husband was a policeman in Northern Ireland? Those people came from different perspectives, but they were suffering none the less due to their tragic and sudden loss.

Theresa Villiers: I reiterate the tributes paid to all participants in the working group, including the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson). Despite the fact that an agreement has not yet been reached, a remarkable amount of consensus has developed between the parties. We must build on that, and ensure that this is not a wasted opportunity and that the parties can get together again to resolve the remaining issues that divide them. On an implementation plan, as I have said already at the Dispatch Box, if agreement is forthcoming, of course the UK Government would be keen to provide support and advice on the practicalities of implementing the proposals across the three areas.

Philip Hollobone: Given what has been said, it appears that no one is particularly surprised that the talks have not worked out, and that no one in particular is being blamed, as these issues are difficult and go back over a long period. Indeed, there is a good deal of satisfaction that this much progress has been made. It also appears that independent chairmanship worked. Given that Dr Richard Haass is no longer available, it would be a shame to lose the momentum and the progress that has been made, so should not the Secretary of State encourage the Executive to appoint a new independent chairman and keep the process going while it is still warm so that we can cross that final finishing line?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, that issue is well worth considering, and this shows one of the values of this early opportunity to debate in the House where things stand with the Haass process. No doubt the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be given a read out of our proceedings, and I will certainly discuss with them the possibilities of appointing an independent chair, if they think that appropriate.

William McCrea: I join my right hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), as well as other hon. Members, in their tributes to Paul Goggins. I knew him personally and found him to be someone who was set apart from many others. He was a person of great grace and tremendous integrity, and he was approachable by everyone, irrespective of which side of the House they were from.
	I also thank the Secretary of State for bringing to the House her report on the Haass talks. She will be acutely aware of attempts by republicans to place the flag of the
	Irish Republic on an equal footing with our sovereign flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is one sovereign flag in Northern Ireland—the Union flag. As a professed Unionist, will the right hon. Lady assure me that the Government will never support any attempt to equate the sovereign flag with the flag of the Irish Republic, a neighbouring country?

Theresa Villiers: As the sovereign flag of the United Kingdom, of course the Union flag must have special status in Northern Ireland. One of the challenges that Dr Haass encountered was that it seemed difficult to distinguish symbols of identity from symbols of sovereignty when it came to an expression of Irishness. It is important that consideration continues on those matters, and I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that, of course, the Union flag will always have a special status as the national flag as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement makes it clear that Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom unless and until its people vote otherwise.

Nigel Mills: In the absence of a long-term solution on parading, does the Secretary of State believe that the new Parades Commission has sufficient confidence from all sides in Northern Ireland to ensure that this year’s parading season does not end in the awful scenes that we saw last year? Does she think that any action is required on her part to ensure that such scenes do not happen again?

Theresa Villiers: It is timely to remind the House of the vital importance of obeying Parades Commission determinations. We have had an extensive debate about reforming the adjudication system for parades, but unless and until an agreement on that is reached and implemented, the Parades Commission is the lawfully designated authority and its determinations must be obeyed.

Barry Gardiner: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what I thought was an extraordinary, moving and wholly appropriate tribute to our colleague, Paul Goggins, at the beginning of this sitting. Paul was inspired by his Christian faith, and all hon. Members will hope that that same faith will be of comfort to his family at this time.
	Does the Secretary of State believe that the difficulties she has charted ahead can be overcome by the downgrading of the Parades Commission’s work to just one day a week? Is she confident that that is an appropriate work load?

Theresa Villiers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Parades Commission is not being downgraded and that it will be able to complete its work. We have a strong new team of parades commissioners, and I reiterate the importance of ensuring that their determinations are obeyed and that the rule of law is respected.

Gregory Campbell: May I join in the tributes to Paul Goggins? He was an outstanding example of a humanitarian, as well as an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. Paul and I worked closely a few years ago when he was a Northern Ireland Minister on the re-establishment of
	Magilligan prison in my constituency when there was a serious threat of its closure. He assured me at that stage that if a case was made, he would overrule some of the decisions that were going to be made in the higher echelons of the civil service. He was, as we all know, a man of his word, and he did that, and I pass on my sympathies to his family and his wife.
	We all welcome the Secretary of State’s update to the House on progress regarding the Haass talks. Given the outstanding differences between the political parties to which she refers, does she agree it is essential that all parties get together as quickly as possible to try to hammer out those outstanding differences so that we get a widespread and comprehensive consensus, and can implement—voluntarily—a consensus across the divide that everyone in Northern Ireland will endorse?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. It is essential that all parties come together to try to resolve the outstanding differences between them.

Mark Durkan: Mr Speaker, may I thank you for speaking for each of us in your very articulate tribute to Paul Goggins’s ethic and the esteem that he earned in this House and beyond? Paul was not a “selfie” politician. His question was not who would get the credit for a measure or change, but who would get the benefit from it. Those of us in Northern Ireland who benefited from his work are right, on this special day, to give him credit for so much of the progress that he helped to build.
	Will the Secretary of State affirm clearly that, in respect of the past, the Haass paper has more balance and much more value than the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) sadly tried to suggest? Will the Secretary of State also affirm that the whole Haass process, and the papers we now have, do have the makings of a worthy, worthwhile and workable advance if the parties agree to work on that, and that what we need to do at this stage is not just maintain working contact between the parties, but have a clear and cogent working compact so that we deal with not only those areas of difference but, more importantly, those areas on which we have reached an understanding that is better than we have ever had before?

Theresa Villiers: I think that I can broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman on much of that. While I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I think that what is now on the table is not as unbalanced as she fears—yes, I do think that it has the makings of a workable solution. These proposals can be the basis for further discussions. Clearly, they are not there yet, because five parties have not agreed, but they certainly form a workable basis for moving forward.

Jim Shannon: May I also add my comments about Paul Goggins? I met him in my previous life as a councillor on Ards borough council, when I found him to be compassionate and interested in the issues that we were bringing to his attention. When I had the privilege of being elected to this House, he was one of the first to shake my hand and welcome me. There was not a time when he would not come over and say a word of encouragement over your shoulder. I very much appreciate not just his contribution to me as an
	individual in this House, but the fact that he has left a legacy that we can all be proud to have been part of.
	In light of the fact that terrorist organisations have no track record of telling the truth about their past activity, does the Secretary of State accept the genuine fears that any process that is designated to discover truth has the potential to be one-sided if the forces of law and order are subjected to full investigation and the terrorists remain unlikely to the tell the truth?

Theresa Villiers: It will certainly be important to ensure that, when agreement is ultimately reached, the procedures on the past are as balanced as they can be. I well understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and others about the importance of ensuring that the process does not lead to attempts to rewrite history or focus exclusively on deaths when the state was involved, and I know that that is something on which the parties have been focused during the discussions. It is important for them to continue to work on that as they try to move forward from what is currently on the table to what I hope, in due course, will be a concluded agreement.

Jenny Chapman: Given the extremely deeply rooted nature of the issues involved in talks about culture, tradition and identity, what role does the Secretary of State anticipate that there will be for schooling and education in helping to resolve some of those issues in the much longer term?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Involving young people in a debate about emblems and cultural identity could be very positive. I would have thought that it would be excellent if the commission engaged with children and young people to get their ideas on how to express identity in Northern Ireland in a way that is respectful to other views and communities.

David Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and join all hon. Members in their tributes to Paul Goggins. In the journey of life, we all meet people who leave a lasting impression, and Paul Goggins certainly was one of those people. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time.
	Further to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), does the Secretary of State accept that there can be no fudging of the distinction between those who were the terrorist perpetrators of violence in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years and those victims who were on the receiving end of their violent deeds, and that, to that end, elements of the Haass text were deeply unsatisfactory?

Theresa Villiers: The UK Government have always made it clear that we would never find it acceptable for someone to draw equivalence between those who sought to undermine and destroy the rule of law through terrorism and those who sought to uphold it as members of the security forces. However, a lot of progress has been made on the proposals about the past—far more than most people expected. To make that progress and build up such a degree of consensus in just four months is encouraging. Some elements of what is in the Haass proposals are difficult, so I understand concerns about
	them, but this is an important opportunity to grasp and there is scope for compromise. The UK Government are prepared to be part of that compromise and we encourage the parties to continue to work on these matters.

Sammy Wilson: May I also join in the tributes to Paul Goggins? Unlike many Ministers who, when they leave Northern Ireland, forget all about the place, Paul was always interested and wanted to hear what was going on, which I think was an indication of the genuine interest he had in the job he performed in Northern Ireland.
	Given the wide range of opinions and the deeply held views that were discussed in the Haass talks, does not the Secretary of State agree that no deal was better than a deal that would have exacerbated the divisions in Northern Ireland? While, as politicians and as a society, we have to continue to work at the issues, does she not agree that the best way of undermining those who want to wreck Northern Ireland is to change our education system, get young people into jobs and have a robust economy, rather than implement quick-fix solutions that simply involve more quangos and legislation?

Theresa Villiers: If any deal is to work, it is important that it commands a broad consensus. If we are to reach an agreement, some difficult decisions may be needed to get the compromises that are necessary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that as well as working on the Haass issues, important though they are, it is crucial that efforts continue to be made to improve education in Northern Ireland, to boost the economy and to deal with all the other challenges with which the Northern Ireland Executive continue to grapple.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I, too, would like to be associated with the tributes that have echoed from both sides of the House to our dear friend Paul Goggins. When I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, he was a particular and specialist help and a source of encouragement. When I had the honour of becoming a Member of this place in 2010, he continued to be not only a friend but, as I saw in the many Committees on which I served with him, an expert on matters of security. His expertise was a particular help. This House will be the poorer for his passing, but his Father’s house of many mansions will be the richer for his presence.
	May I also say, Mr Speaker, that I think your tribute to him was touching? You described him as a man who was Labour to the core, but the least tribal of Members. I think that that captured the man and the moment, and we are richer for that.
	Turning to the Haass talks, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that I am known for speaking my mind and for calling a spade a shovel. I believe that my party was right to say no to the
	final text, and it will remain right to say no until it gets to a point when it is able to say yes to something that we can recommend to our community. I believe that we did the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing when it comes to saying no at the right time and saying yes when it is appropriate to do so.
	The Secretary of State said that it was disappointing that it had not proved possible to reach an agreement on an historical investigations unit to take the place of the HET. Why would she try to fund such a unit, with its panoply of lawyers and additional experts, when there is a shortfall of £60 million, starting in 2015, for the current arrangement, which is the cheaper option, and when there is an additional shortfall of £36 million for security? Will she commit now to finding the money to allow the police to function for the next five years, rather than pursuing this fanciful idea of an historical investigations unit?

Theresa Villiers: It is important that the parties continue to work to find an agreed position on all these issues. I welcome the statement from the First Minister that he feels able to support substantial parts of the Haass proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of costs, which would need to be resolved in the event of an agreement. As I have said, the UK Government would expect the Northern Ireland Executive to fund that primarily from within the considerable resources provided by the block grant. We will obviously consider any application for top-up funding, but given that we have to deal with a deficit of such gravity, it is difficult to commit to additional funds at this stage.

Kevin Brennan: I cannot help but feel that, by now, Paul Goggins would have made a contribution on this statement with his usual good sense, grace and compassion that would have added wisdom to our proceedings. That is why his passing is a loss not just to his family, friends and comrades, but to the House.
	It might never be possible to agree entirely about the past, but it should be possible to agree that the future of Northern Ireland will be served only by continued dialogue in the present. To that end, will the Secretary of State do all that she can with Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and the shadow Northern Ireland team to maintain the momentum achieved through the Haass process?

Theresa Villiers: I can certainly assure hon. Gentleman that I will do everything that I can to maintain the momentum, working with all the people he outlined.
	I would like to close by once again thanking the two Members of the House who were direct participants in the Haass process: the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long).

Mr Speaker: I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and all colleagues both for what they have said and for the way they have said it.

Points of Order

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: It seems that there are points of order galore.

Jonathan Ashworth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. No doubt, you will have seen today’s Guardian front page, which reports a major rift between the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions over universal credit. Leaked documents in The Guardian report that the Cabinet Office has accelerated Government Digital Service withdrawal from universal credit. At the last Cabinet Office oral questions, I asked the Paymaster General for a full explanation of his role in universal credit, but he declined to answer. Has he given you any notice that he plans to come to the House to give us a full explanation of his role in the universal credit shambles?

Mr Speaker: I certainly confess to being a regular reader of The Guardian, among other newspapers. I have received no such indication, but the hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record, and they will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. I think that we will have to leave it there for today.

Jim Sheridan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In late October, I raised a point of order with you about the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer questions from Back Benchers. Twice, he refused not only to answer my questions, but to make any reference to them. Instead, he ranted about Unite the union. You gave me some sound advice, Mr Speaker. You told me to write to the Prime Minister, which I did, on 31 October, but I am still awaiting a response. You also suggested that I speak to the Table Office. I have spoken extensively to the Table Office, which, after long discussions, agrees with me, as I understand it, that there is no mechanism in this place, when a Minister either refuses to answer a question from a Back Bencher or makes no reference to the question, to ensure that the question gets answered. If that is the case, is that a concern for the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. All I can say today is that the Prime Minister is answerable to the House for his conduct in government, not for his private life. The hon. Gentleman can pursue the Government through all the procedural channels available to him. He has asked his questions and has received answers that he finds unsatisfactory. I am afraid that he is not the first and is unlikely to be the last hon. Member to have that experience. I can only encourage him to persevere. For today at least, we will have to leave it there, partly because I have nothing to add and partly because there are other points of order with which I need to deal.

Margaret Ritchie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 13 December, the House had its annual debate on fisheries, which was quickly followed by negotiations in Brussels on 17 and
	18 December, at which the allocations for fish species were agreed. Following such negotiations, it is customary to have an oral statement in the House from the appropriate Minister. Have you received any indication of such a statement being forthcoming?

Mr Speaker: I have received no such indication, but the hon. Lady is an indefatigable Member. Her concerns will have been heard by the Deputy Leader of the House, and she will have to look for opportunities, either at Question Time or through the resources of the Table Office, to highlight her inquiries.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, with your permission, with pride and humility, I would like to associate myself with the tributes paid to Paul Goggins, our dear friend—particularly yours, Mr Speaker. He was involved in many activities. I remember most his commitment to international development, which was shared by his family and his son Dominic. I know that our thoughts, as expressed by you, are very much with them today.
	During our eventful break, to their credit the television media covered the significant events in South Sudan. That is understandable, given that 200,000 people have been displaced, 500,000 are waiting for humanitarian aid and awful violence continues. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication, either by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development, that a Minister intends to make a statement to the House? If not, may I seek you invaluable advice about how the matter might be pursued?

Mr Speaker: I have received no such indication from either Department. My advice to the right hon. Gentleman is to think forward to Tuesday 21 January, when there will be oral questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his team. The right hon. Gentleman might think that a suitable opportunity to raise the matters of concern to him. Who knows? He might be successful either on the Order Paper or in seeking to raise a supplementary question.

Ian Lavery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Cabinet Office released confidential documents to the National Archives relating to the then Government’s covert intervention in the 1984-85 miners’ strike. The documents confirmed what the National Union of Mineworkers and the Labour movement fully suspected at the time, but many people in the mining communities and the UK as a whole were alarmed to learn that senior Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the people of this country. Have you been approached, Mr Speaker, by the present Government wishing to apologise and to put the record straight regarding the then Government’s real intentions back in 1984-85, which were to close 75 pits, not 20 pits, as they insisted? If not, will you advise the House how this injustice can be rectified by the House?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is no; I have received no such approach. It is, of course, open to the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate, in which he could set out his thoughts more fully and elicit a response. I have a sense that that is a course that the hon. Gentleman will in all likelihood follow.

John Mann: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. About 90 minutes ago, I raised a question with the Prime Minister about the situation of police officers patrolling by public transport in Bassetlaw, and the Prime Minister responded by saying that crime had gone down 27%—a fact that he miraculously repeated within seconds on Twitter, putting it out to the outside world. I have the statistics with me, and crime in Bassetlaw has not gone down by 27%; it has gone up by 2%, including in respect of all the serious categories. What advice do you have, Mr Speaker, about getting the Prime Minister to correct the record in relation to the objectively available facts about the change in crime in Bassetlaw?

Mr Speaker: My advice is twofold. First, all Members are responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of what they say. If a mistake has been made, it should be corrected. The procedure for making a correction will be well known to any and all hon. Members. Secondly, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, with due affection, that I first met him when we served on the Lambeth borough council together in 1986, so we have known each other for 27 years. He always struck me as an extraordinarily persistent blighter then, and nothing in the intervening period has caused me to revise that judgment.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of what you had to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) regarding the release of papers on the year-long miners’ strike, we are not talking about a day or two; we are talking about the sentiments and points of view expressed over a long period in the House by Ministers. It was pretty clear, according to the papers that have been released, that many things said by Ministers were based on something that was not correct. It therefore gets to the heart of Parliament when we realise that those
	statements made over a year-long period were shaping the views of all people, including the judiciary, which learned what it wanted to know about the nature of the strike based on ministerial statements on a continuing basis. That is why this issue is so important retrospectively.
	You, Mr Speaker, have several times heard the Prime Minister apologise for some incidents involving Governments from way back. That applies to previous Prime Ministers as well as this one. I therefore think that it is your duty, Mr Speaker—an adventurous Speaker—to use your good offices on this matter. Since you assumed your office, you have already moved into some such territories, so it is important to check all the statements made in this House in violation of what we now know as a result of the release of these papers. If you do that, Mr Speaker, we will then be able to see how the course of events in that year-long strike were shaped, resulting in the judiciary taking action—on sequestration, on the imprisonment of people, on blacklisting and on other events. What flowed from the mouths of those who occupied the Treasury Bench at the time was the utterance of statements that we now know to be untrue. That makes this a parliamentary issue rather than one that is just broadly political.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I hope that he will recognise, as the House will have noted, that I have treated it with great respect. I have listened to him while he fully made his point. I would say two things in response. First, rather than give an instant response, I would like to reflect on what he said. Secondly, while noting his observations about my spirit of adventure, it may be that what he seeks on this occasion could conceivably be beyond my spirit of adventure—I do not know. I will consider the matter and if I think it necessary to revert to the House, I shall do so. We will have to leave it there for today.

Driving Offences (Review of Sentencing Guidelines)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Susan Elan Jones: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the maximum penalties for driving offences causing death and serious injury; and for connected purposes.
	I stand today to present this ten-minute rule Bill because of something that happened in the village of Overton in my constituency of Clwyd South in October 2009. That was when Robert James Gaunt, a nine-year-old boy, tragically lost his life. Robert was a schoolboy from the village. He was mown down by a driver while crossing the road. Young Robert was killed. The driver who so carelessly took Robert Gaunt’s life was unlicensed and uninsured. He hit Robert, killed him, and drove away. He not only failed to stop, but did not even report the accident. Even worse, he attempted to cover up his crime by re-spraying his car.
	Robert’s life came abruptly and needlessly to an end—and for this, the driver incurred a pitiful sentence of 22 months. That was the very limit of what was possible under the law for that offence. This man hit a child, took a young boy’s life and, after driving away to leave that child to die, was sentenced to a grand total of 22 months and a four-year driving ban. The man served only 10 months in jail, which cannot be right.
	After the injustice of this case and many others like it, people from my constituency launched a petition calling for sentences for this sort of crime to be raised. More than 1,300 names were added online and a further 2,000 collected on paper. The campaign continued, even though a change of Government meant an early closure to the online petition. Many of the people who signed the petition had probably never signed a petition before and perhaps never signed one since, but they did so on this occasion out of a passion for justice for Robert and for other victims of road accidents around our country.
	As the local Member of Parliament, I stand here to give my support by calling for the law to be changed. This motion calls for the Government to bring in a new Bill to do exactly what the family of Robert James Gaunt was calling for back in 2009. We are asking the Government to look at the maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death and serious injury.
	Currently, those who cause death by driving face a number of charges and a large scale of sentences, ranging from mere months to 14 years. However, no driver has been handed a 14-year term since Parliament first lengthened the maximum sentence from 10 years in 2004. The reality is that sentencing guidelines mean that there must be a large and frankly improbable series of aggravating factors for a judge to issue anywhere near that sentence. Tougher penalties are not being used because judges are being held back by guidelines that prevent them from handing out longer sentences.
	My own party in government was right to fight for higher maximum penalties in 2004, and the current Government, encouraged by the tireless campaigning of many hon. Members of all parties, is equally right to
	have incorporated into the Crime and Courts Act 2013 new rules on drug taking while driving and to have amended the Road Traffic Act 1988. Both Governments can rightly be proud of having brought in changes that go in the right direction—but, as we know, there is much further for us to go.
	If a driver is caught driving with
	“deliberate decision or flagrant disregard for the rules of the road”,
	the starting-point for judges when choosing a sentence is eight years. This can be longer for a number of reasons, such as when a person is killed or when the driver is driving a stolen vehicle. Let us reflect for a moment on how subjective
	“deliberate decision or flagrant disregard for the rules of the road”
	is. If a driver is seen to be creating significant danger—the lowest level of seriousness—the starting point for sentencing judges is three years, and the maximum term is five years. If the driver is injured, the sentence is shortened; if the victim was a friend, the sentence is shortened; and on and on we go.
	In general, I think it absolutely right that our criminal justice system differentiates between those who make a mistake, commit a crime and acknowledge that crime, and those who, as in the case involving Robert Gaunt, flee, hide and pervert the course of justice. However, I feel that what we are seeing in relation to driving offences simply beggars belief. Drivers who plead guilty before their trials have their sentences automatically reduced by a third, and most will be released on licence after serving only half their given sentences.
	The rules and guidelines set out by the law mean that drivers who end the lives of innocent people on our roads have their sentences reduced, reduced and reduced until, bit by bit, they decline to mere months. For the families of those who are killed, that is clearly not justice, which is why I am urging the Government to review the sentencing guidelines relating to penalties for driving offences that lead to death or serious injury. If we change the law and the sentencing guidelines are reformed properly, that will bring some measure of justice. I hope that it will also give people who are uninsured or unlicensed grounds to pause before they get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
	Today, I have spoken about the tragic case of Robert James Gaunt, but cases similar to Robert’s happen all over the country. Innocent people are killed by drivers who are given risibly low sentences. Families throughout our nation have lost loved ones through reckless, dangerous or negligent driving, and the law is not doing enough to hold those who take lives in this way accountable. Why should a sentence be so short when the injury has been caused by a car rather than a weapon? Sentences for assault are much longer, even when the act is not premeditated. The average sentence served by drivers who kill or seriously injure another human being while driving is currently just 11 months. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen other Members who, while probably agreeing on precious little else politically, are at one in urging reform on this issue. We know that there is a tremendous amount of support for a review from Members of all parties.
	I firmly believe that this is about finding justice for those who have been let down by the system, and ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. Tragically,
	that is often not the case at present. I wholeheartedly support the provision of a range of different sentences for driving offences; what I am calling for today is a logical development of the current system and more consideration of what sentences are given.
	My constituents embarked on their campaign to secure justice for Robert. Of course we can never secure true justice for a young boy who was so tragically and needlessly deprived of his life, but what I hope that we can do is to take action that will save more families from similar heartbreak in the future. That is why I stand here today—on behalf of the family of Robert James Gaunt, the people of Overton, and people throughout the country who share our concern—and urge the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death and serious injury.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Susan Elan Jones, Chris Ruane, Albert Owen, Mr Mark Williams, Ian Lucas, Julie Hilling, Karl Turner, Mr David Hanson, Ms Margaret Ritchie and Mark Tami present the Bill.
	Susan Elan Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February and to be printed (Bill 152).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[16th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Housing

Hilary Benn: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Government has failed to tackle the acute housing shortage which is central to the cost of living crisis and over the last three years has presided over the lowest level of new homes built since the 1920s, with home ownership falling, rents at record highs and rising faster than wages and a record five million people in the queue for social housing; further notes that net housing supply under this Government has fallen to its lowest level since records began, and that affordable housing supply dropped in the last year by 26 per cent, homes built for social rent dropped to a 20-year low, while there has been a 104 per cent increase in in-work housing benefit claimants since 2009; believes that the Government should take action to tackle the housing shortage; and calls on the Government to boost housing supply by reforming the development industry and introducing measures to tackle landbanking, bringing forward plans to deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities and giving local authorities a new right to grow to deliver the homes their communities need.
	Before I begin, let me say that I thought that Mr Speaker spoke for all of us earlier in his eloquent and moving tribute to our dear friend and comrade Paul Goggins. His death is a tragedy. He was as decent, compassionate, principled and, I have to say, cheerful a man as one could have the privilege to meet, and we will miss him dreadfully. Our hearts go out to Wyn and to their three children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic.
	The fact that we face a housing crisis is common ground across the House. Why do we face that crisis? Because people are living longer and staying in their own homes, which is a good thing; because our population is rising; because every relationship breakdown increases the demand for housing; but principally because, as a society, we have not been building enough homes. Whether we look at starts, completions or net housing supply, the failure to build over the past three years could not be more starkly obvious.
	It is good to see the Secretary of State taking part in today’s debate. By my count, he has participated in at least four major housing launches, and his Department has made nearly 400 announcements about housing in the past three years. I have brought some of them along. They are headed “Building more homes”, “Welcome rise in affordable housing”, “Plans to boost UK housebuilding”, and “Prevention is best cure for homelessness”. This is the question that the Secretary of State should answer: is he proud of his record over those three years?
	The Secretary of State’s Department tells us that an average of 232,000 new households will be formed in England each year over the next two decades. However, in the three years for which he has been in charge, the number of homes completed in England has fallen to its lowest level since Stanley Baldwin was first Prime Minister. The number of affordable homes built fell by 29% last year, and the number of social homes built fell to its lowest level for more than 20 years.

Andy Slaughter: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend noticed last week that house prices in Hammersmith and Fulham rose by
	25% last year, and that the average cost of a property in the borough is now £693,000. Will he join me in condemning Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is selling off council homes by auction as they become vacant, and has just entered into a joint venture with Stanhope, a private developer, to empty and demolish council estates and replace them with market or near-market housing?

Hilary Benn: I shall come to the issue of house prices in London later in my speech. However, the situation that my hon. Friend has described in his own borough should concern Members in all parts of the House. Given the need for more social homes in London—and, indeed, in the rest of the country—it is hard to understand why a responsible council should take such action.
	The number of housing starts fell by 11% last year, and, although it is now rising, it is still far from where it needs to be. Net housing supply is at its lowest level since the statistics began to be collected a decade ago.

Jake Berry: The right hon. Gentleman is keen to talk about the Government’s record in England. Will he comment on the fact that as of July last year the number of housing completions in England had risen by 34%, while in Labour-controlled Wales it had fallen by 32%? How can he explain that, if he believes that Labour has the panacea?

Hilary Benn: I am here today to talk about housing provision in England and if the hon. Gentleman wants to compare the Labour record with the Conservative record, I will take any time our record over 13 years in government—

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I can help him out on this.

Hilary Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? That is help from an unusual quarter.
	The record is 2 million more homes, 500,000 of them affordable. I watched with interest the contribution of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) to Channel 4 News last night, and I would just say to him on social homes—council houses and housing association social homes—that the Labour Government built more social homes in their last three years, which were the most difficult because of the recession, than this Government have managed to build in their first three years in office.

Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in London possibly more than most places, because of the ridiculous cost of private rented accommodation, it is essential that we have a supply of social housing? When the Government made a commitment to replace homes sold under right to buy, they said there would be a one-to-one replacement. Does he share my concern that that promise turned out to be totally worthless as they are replacing only one property for every seven sold?

Hilary Benn: Indeed; my hon. Friend points out yet another failure with the promises the Government made on—

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: Yes, I will give way.

Pete Wishart: I know the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to talk about the devolved Governments Labour has run, but does he know how many houses Labour built in the last four years in government in Scotland? Obviously, it is a difficult question, but the answer is six: six houses, and none of them were on the Scottish mainland. Shetland was lucky enough to get six houses from the Labour Executive.

Hilary Benn: In Scotland and elsewhere local authorities have responsibility for building houses, but we are here to hold this Government to account, and homelessness—

David Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: Yes, of course.

David Hamilton: I would like to respond to the previous intervention and correct the record. Labour Midlothian council was building 1,000 council houses at that time, in what is the second smallest land-locked authority area, so the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was talking absolute rubbish.

Hilary Benn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight. Perhaps I should have trusted my initial judgment and not given way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory Government have in fact cut the capital budget for Wales by 40% and obviously one cannot build more houses with less money?

Hilary Benn: That is an extremely good point and it matches what the Government have done in relation to England, which I shall come to in a moment.
	The Government said that they wanted to prevent homelessness, but what has happened? It has risen every year under this Government and rough-sleeping is up by nearly a third since 2010. House prices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned a moment ago, are racing ahead of earnings. They are up 8.4% in the last 12 months according to Nationwide and up 15% in London, and today it takes the average family over 20 years to save a deposit for a house. If we are talking about records, that figure in 1997 was three years, so no wonder the rate of home ownership is falling. Therefore, it is not really working, is it?

Guy Opperman: In Prudhoe in my constituency eight out of the 10 houses that were purchased recently at the development by the hospital were bought under Help to Buy. Does the right hon. Gentleman now welcome the Help to Buy policy which has transformed the ability of people to bridge the difficulty he so correctly outlines?

Hilary Benn: I shall come to Help to Buy in a moment, but, yes, we have consistently said that we welcome measures that help people to buy, but there is a problem about supply and that is what this debate is about: the Government’s failure to ensure that enough homes are being built. The truth is we need to build a lot more homes as a country—roughly double the current rate. The question before the House today is not whether we are now seeing a rise in housing starts from the pitifully low level the Government have bequeathed themselves over the last three years. The question before the House today is: does the country have a plan that will see building on the scale required? Judging by the record so far, the answer is clearly no, and there is one bit of advice I suggest the Secretary of State takes, which he gave himself: he did at least have the modesty to put out one press release which was headed:
	“No complacency in the drive to build more homes.”
	The Secretary of State should listen to the plans and proposals Labour have put forward about what more needs to be done. Let us consider affordable homes. What did the Government do? One of their first acts was to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. [Interruption.] Indeed, it was the largest cut they made. We have tried to persuade them to use the proceeds of the 4G auction to build affordable homes and to listen to the International Monetary Fund calling for an infrastructure boost by providing more affordable homes. They have not done that.
	I come now to the new homes bonus. The National Audit Office said there is little evidence that the bonus has significantly changed local authorities’ behaviour, and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says there is no credible data available to show whether it is working. Indeed, she has pointed out that the areas that have gained most money tend to be the areas where housing need is lowest and the areas that have lost most money tend to be those where the needs are greatest. That is a familiar story with this Government: whether it is local government funding or the new homes bonus, they like to take from those who are least well-off and give to those who are most well-off. What is more, the money that is taken from the least well-off goes to areas where in all probability the houses would have been built anyway, so in what sense is the new homes bonus
	“a powerful incentive for local authorities to deliver housing”?
	We know the new housing Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), does not think it is an incentive because he told us so. On 25 November he told the House that
	“the new homes bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 11.]
	That is what he said. If that is the case, what on earth is the new homes bonus for? Perhaps when the Secretary of State responds he could sort out the confusion in his own Department.

Ian Mearns: When the new homes bonus policy came in, my local authority in Gateshead literally did not know what to do with its new homes bonus. Because the new homes bonus was netted off because of any demolitions that had taken place, Gateshead got a grand total of £64,000. We literally did not know what to do with £64,000 to implement a housing policy in Gateshead.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend illustrates the problem, because, as we know, this is money that has been top-sliced from all local authorities and is being redistributed in a way that clearly does not appear to be fair and, judging by the findings of the PAC and the NAO, is not terribly effective.

Caroline Lucas: In my constituency in Brighton increasing numbers of people are on the council waiting list as people struggle under the Government’s austerity measures, yet for the whole country the Chancellor has increased the borrowing limits to build council houses by a mere £300 million, which is nowhere near enough. The Labour motion refers to
	“giving local authorities a new right to grow to deliver”
	new homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that that means a Labour Government would completely remove the hugely damaging borrowing cap so more housing can be built, as well as ending the sale of council houses?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Lady may be aware, the Lyons commission established by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is looking at that question. Labour councils are outdoing Conservative authorities in building new council houses because of the reforms to the housing revenue account the last Labour Government put in place.

Nick Raynsford: My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the extraordinary story of the new homes bonus. The one thing he has not mentioned is the cost. Because it is a cumulative bonus that works over six years, the commitments that have already been made involve expenditure commitments of over £7 billion. Is it not extraordinary that a Government are committing to £7 billion-plus of expenditure on a policy that the NAO does not see has having any effect and the housing Minister does not believe acts as the incentive it is supposed to be?

Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend makes an overwhelmingly powerful case. That is the problem with the new homes bonus and that is why we are urging the Government to think again about it. Indeed, when the Chancellor tried to persuade the Treasury Committee that the Government’s actions were going to boost supply, the Treasury Committee said the arguments being made were “unconvincing”.
	I shall turn now to the Help to Buy scheme. I said in answer to an earlier intervention that we support measures to assist people in realising their dream of home ownership, but if one of the consequences is that house prices move further and further out of people’s reach, there will be a problem. We cannot boost demand for housing, which is what Help to Buy is doing, if we do not also increase the supply. There is a growing list of voices expressing concern about the scheme, the latest of which belongs to someone who happens to sit at the Cabinet table with the Secretary of State. I refer, of course, to the Business Secretary. Talking recently about the state of the economy, he said that
	“we risk it being derailed by a housing bubble…It’s not my job to tell the Bank of England what to do, but I get a sense that the Governor of the Bank does understand this is a serious problem.”

Alec Shelbrooke: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to expand his remarks to cover areas beyond London and the south-east? As a Leeds MP, he will know as well as I do that there is not a housing bubble there, and that house prices are not running away. The Help to Buy scheme is making a real difference, because the price of a house in my constituency—and in many parts of his constituency—is eight to nine times more than the average salary in those areas. The scheme is really helping people there. He has made the point that prices are increasing in London, but will he please ensure that this debate is about more than just London and the south-east?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As he knows, the housing market varies enormously between different parts of the country. In the city that he and I have the privilege of representing, the council’s assessment—which is supported by all the parties—is that we will need roughly 70,000 new homes in the next 15 years. That is a question of supply.

Marcus Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I have given way a great deal. I want to make some progress, because lots of people want to speak.
	Let us look at the situation in London. Here, we see new blocks being built and marketed to foreign investors, making it much more difficult for Londoners and others to get a chance to buy those homes. The shadow housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), has said that that is wrong and called for action to require such homes to be marketed to Londoners and others who live in this country first, rather than being sold off-plan to investors abroad.

Marcus Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I want to make some progress.
	In the capital, about 50,000 homes are now sitting empty. That is why Labour would allow councils to double the council tax on empty properties. We would also deal with the loophole that allows overseas owners to claim that a property is their second home, simply because they have put a table and chair in it.
	I asked the Secretary of State a specific question last March about whether foreign buyers would be able to benefit from the Help to Buy scheme, and his reply could not have been clearer:
	“This scheme will not be available for foreign buyers; this is a scheme to help people from this country.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1311.]
	Will he confirm for the record that EU nationals who have come to the UK will not be eligible for assistance from the Help to Buy scheme? I will give way to him to allow him to answer. I notice that he does not wish to intervene. Perhaps a nod would do. This is the third time I have asked him about foreign buyers in relation to the Help to Buy scheme, and it is the third time he has been unable or unwilling to give me an answer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hilary Benn: I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

Clive Betts: Given that the Help to Buy scheme is such a major plank of Government housing policy, does my right hon. Friend not think that the Government should have made a detailed assessment of its likely impact on house building and house prices before introducing it? When the Treasury Select Committee asked officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government about that in November, they said that it was not a matter for them; they said it was a matter for the Treasury. When asked whether any officials at DCLG had had any discussions with Treasury officials about the impact of the scheme, they said no. Is not that a complete dereliction of duty on the part of DCLG with regard to this important policy?

Hilary Benn: I agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have called on the Bank of England to look into the operation of the Help to Buy scheme now, rather than in a year’s time, precisely so that those points can be taken on board.
	I want to move on to discuss what else could be done to get the land, the finance and the planning consent required to build more homes. Ministers seem to argue that nothing is really wrong with the way in which the land market is working. I have to say to the Secretary of State that we disagree. The planning Minister, in his latest written answer to me, has said there are more than 523,000 units with planning permission, of which 241,500 have not yet even been started on site. That represents a lot of homes that could be built, yet companies are sitting on the land, with planning permission, waiting for it to increase in value and not building on it.
	The Office of Fair Trading looked into this matter and found that strategic land banks, including optioned land, were worth 14.3 years, which is about enough land to build 1.4 million homes. That is why we think it perfectly reasonable for communities that have given planning permission to say to those who sought it, “Look, will you please get on and build the homes you said you wanted to build? And if you don’t, then after a time we will start levying a charge. After all, if you had built them, we would now be getting council tax revenue. In the most extreme cases, we will use compulsory purchase powers to take the land off you, with the permission, and sell it to someone else who will build the homes.”
	I know that Ministers spluttered into their Cornflakes when we announced that policy, and that the Mayor of London described it as a “Mugabe-style” land grab, but I would gently point out that among those who support the idea of charging when permission has been granted but no houses have been built are the International Monetary Fund and someone who goes by the name of Boris Johnson, who, when I last checked, was the Mayor of London. Moreover, the planning Minister once called for a tax on land to “deter speculative land banks”. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen has also spoken up in favour of the proposal, and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has tried to claim it as a Conservative idea. With such illustrious backing, how could Labour’s proposal be anything other than a very good plan indeed?

Mark Pawsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I am going to make some progress.
	When Kate Barker carried out her review into the housing market a decade ago she found two factors that we need to consider. First, she said that
	“limited land supply means the competition tends to be focused on land acquisition rather than on consumers”.
	Secondly, she found that
	“many housebuilders ‘trickle out’ houses…to protect themselves against price volatility”.
	[Interruption.] Hon. Members say that that was a decade ago, but it is still going on. Roughly translated, it means that not all house builders have an incentive to build all the homes for which they have planning permission as quickly as possible or as quickly as the nation needs them to. That is a problem, and we have proposed a way of dealing with it. Even when times were good, when mortgage credit was readily available and house prices were booming, the house building industry was unable to build the number of homes required.

Marcus Jones: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the previous housing boom in 2006-07. Will he explain why the number of first-time buyers fell to its lowest level on record at that time, and why, following the moves made by the present Government, we are seeing the strongest growth in first-time buyer numbers for more than a decade?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there was a very difficult period—[Interruption.] No, there was a collapse in the global economy. It is no good the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen shaking his head. The problems that we experienced in the United Kingdom were caused in particular by problems in the housing market in the United States of America. That is why we should be concerned by the threat of a housing bubble returning to the United Kingdom.
	One of the answers must be to get more people building houses. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen nodding in agreement. Forty or 50 years ago, two thirds of the houses in this country were built by small and medium-sized builders. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can carry on nodding; that is fine. I am grateful for his support. Nowadays, the figure is only one third, and when we talk to small and medium-sized builders about the problems they face, they mention two things: the difficulty of getting access to land and the difficulty in obtaining finance. Something needs to be done about both.

Debbie Abrahams: In addition to the situation facing small builders, is it not also an indictment that, at 20%, we have the lowest level of self-builders in Europe? In the housing policy we develop we need to encourage communities such as the one in Saddleworth where more than 20 people want to build their own individual homes.

Hilary Benn: I agree completely, and I shall say a word about that in a moment.

Robert Flello: Let me take a step back in terms of land where planning permission has been obtained. We need to address the issue of big developers grabbing every large piece of land, as has happened in Stoke-on-Trent, and smaller
	developers who want to move on and develop land not being able to do so because the big pieces of land have already been snapped up and are held on to very firmly.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the nature of the land market, why reform is required and why that is one thing we have asked Sir Michael Lyons to look at in his work.
	The next problem the Government should start looking at is the difficulty faced by local authorities in places such as Stevenage, Oxford, Luton and York, which want to see houses built to meet demand but do not have the land and neighbouring authorities are not co-operating and making that happen. Ministers recognise that there is a problem, because that is why they put the duty to co-operate in the national planning policy framework.

Stephen McPartland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? On Stevenage?

Hilary Benn: I will give way.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of Stevenage, where he went with some of Labour colleagues, without informing me, to launch their housing policy. Is he aware that Labour-controlled Stevenage borough council has still not asked neighbouring North Hertfordshire district council whether it will have any houses required in its local plan, because Stevenage borough council believes it can meet its need within its own administrative boundaries?

Hilary Benn: What the hon. Gentleman has just said absolutely does not square with what the leader of Stevenage borough council has said to me—

Stephen McPartland: rose—

Hilary Benn: Excuse me. It also does not square with the figures that I have looked at on the proposals for development to the north of Stevenage, which have been consistently blocked. The truth is that a duty to co-operate is not a duty to help each other out or to reach agreement. So in those circumstances, what is a council supposed to do? That shows why the right to grow would provide a means of overcoming this problem by requiring neighbouring local authorities to work together to ensure that the houses that need to be built are built. It is not a top-down—

Stephen McPartland: On a point of order—

Hilary Benn: It is no good asking me for a point of order.

Dawn Primarolo: No it is not. You are quite right, Mr Benn. I was just about to call Mr McPartland to make his point of order.

Stephen McPartland: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just made an accusation about Stevenage. I would just like to clarify things to the House, and I wonder whether that is in order.

Dawn Primarolo: That is not a point of order. Points of order are not clarifications of debates. The hon. Gentleman can, if he wishes, stand to try to catch my eye, but at the rate we are progressing through this debate he will be lucky if there is any time left, because this debate has to finish at 4 pm and a large number of Members are here. However, I am sure that he will try to pursue his point in other ways.

Hilary Benn: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two other points to make, one of which is about new towns and garden cities. The Government used to be very keen on those at one point, but they seem to have become less enthusiastic. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about that when he responds, because it is hard to see how we will make progress without those things . We have to incentivise local authorities to come forward, which is why the Lyons commission is going to look at how we can help new towns and garden cities to be established and why a Labour Treasury would use guarantees—the Government are currently using guarantees for Help to Buy—for “help to build” for these new towns.
	Finally, we need communities to take responsibility for building new homes. On that I am with the planning Minister, because I believe that neighbourhood planning is the way forward. For too long, we have had a system in which nobody has really taken responsibility for building new homes. Thame in south Oxfordshire provides a good example of the new community plan. If communities feel that the new houses that they give consent to will solve the housing problem in their own neighbourhood, they will be much more likely to give agreement. That is why we need plots for self-build and local allocation policies for social housing, and why we need to give local people first call on having the chance to buy new developments in their area. That will give communities confidence that the homes will meet their need.
	The progress so far has not been considerable, but the task is. I do not know whether the Secretary of State in the end believed all his press releases and announcements, I do not know whether he thought that blaming councils would be enough and I do not know whether he was taken in by what I have to describe as the bombast of this Government’s first housing Minister, who boasted consistently of the Government’s record. The problem is that the Secretary of State’s record speaks all too clearly for itself. Therefore, the country needs a new plan. The public need it because they are the ones paying the price for failure. Homes give us security and a sense of community: they are where we build and raise families; they are places for children to do their homework; and they are good for our health. However, rents are rising twice as fast as wages, house prices are moving out of reach of families, and 5 million people are in the queue for social housing. This country needs something different, and I urge the House to vote for this motion.

Eric Pickles: The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) spoke with considerable sincerity and eloquence, as did Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, in paying tribute to Paul Goggins. Before we go on, I wish to say that I had experience of Paul as a Minister when I
	pursued a constituency case, and I found him to be courteous, diligent and helpful. I also had experience of him when I was the Minister, and he pursued his constituents’ interest doggedly but always with enormous charm. I think it is heartbreaking that a man who had so much to offer to this House and, far more importantly, to his family has gone so prematurely, and I will miss him.
	I welcome this debate. We have been through a difficult housing crisis but this is only the second debate on housing that the official Opposition have called, and we had to goad them into calling one of those. Throughout the period, I have never felt under any pressure from the official Opposition on housing, and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central has eloquently demonstrated why that is. All Labour Members want to do today is talk down the economy, ignore the recovery and cast their heads in the sand about the sustained turnaround in the housing market. It has certainly taken some time to deal with the problems that Labour left us. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Stanley Baldwin’s housing figures, and when I walked through the door of Eland house the spirit of Stanley Baldwin and those figures met me. That was our baseline—that is what we actually started from. Once upon a time—

Andrew Love: rose—

Eric Pickles: I will give way in a few moments. Would it be possible for me actually to say something before the hon. Gentleman intervenes?
	Once upon a time, the last Labour Prime Minister, advised by the current Leader of the Opposition and shadow Chancellor, announced that he had abolished “boom and bust”. It was a debt-fuelled illusion of a boom, resulting in the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and a crash that devastated the housing market—all that was under Labour’s watch. Let us cast our minds back to 2008—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Eric Pickles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can remember 2008. The then housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), was photographed outside Downing street with her speaking notes. No doubt the right hon. Member for Leeds Central was in the Cabinet and waiting to be briefed. This is what her notes said:
	“Housebuilding is stalling…New starts are already down 10% compared to a year ago. Housebuilders are predicting further falls.”
	The notes also said:
	“We can’t know how bad it will get.”
	We know now that it would become far worse.

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that lending from banks for mortgages now is at the 2008 level but lending from banks to business and construction is 30% down, which is why house prices are escalating out of control and real wages are falling through the floor? When interest rates go up in a couple of years there will be a burst of the housing bubble and sub-prime debt.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman needs to look a little outside London given where he represents. He could even look in some parts of London. Newham, for example, saw a drop of just under 1% in house prices. If
	we take out the London figures—figures for parts of London can be very spectacular—and look at the rest of the country, we will see that the increase in house prices has been very modest indeed. Not even in London have the figures reached where they were in 2007, so to talk about a housing bubble is ridiculous.

Alec Shelbrooke: As I tried gently to prod the shadow Secretary of State during his contribution, may I now say that I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for moving the debate beyond London and the south-east to areas in which my constituency and those of a great many of my hon. Friends are based?

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Our long-term economic plan is helping to pay off the deficit, keep interest rates down and let the housing market recover.

Clive Betts: rose—

Eric Pickles: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but just let me make a little bit of progress.
	According to the Office for National Statistics, house building is now at its highest level since 2007, based on new orders in residential construction. House building starts in the last quarter were at their highest level since 2008. The National House-Building Council agrees, with new home registrations at their highest since 2008. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has declared that
	“every part of the country has reported growth since the beginning of the market crash six years ago.”
	Contrary to the Opposition’s motion, statistics on net housing supply show that 400,000 more homes have been delivered in the first three years, which is in line with figures before Labour’s housing crash.

Nick Raynsford: As the Secretary of State is referring to figures, will he confirm that his Department’s statistics show that in 2007, 176,000 homes were built, in 2008, 148,000 homes were built, and in the latest 12 months in which he has been Secretary of State, just 107,950 were built?

Eric Pickles: Basically, if the right hon. Gentleman walks through the door of Eland house and embraces Stanley Baldwin’s figures, he will find that it takes a wee while to start to make progress. He should congratulate the Government on what we have been doing to get the thing going again, and it is a matter of some pleasure that that is the case.

Clive Betts: rose—

Eric Pickles: I will give way to the distinguished hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I would like him to consider that brick makers stayed at work over the Christmas period—very unusually—to catch up with demand for bricks to build new homes. Including empty homes being brought back into use, the new homes bonus has made available more than half a million more homes to buy and rent. I must say that I have, after a fashion, become attached to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central [Interruption.] I am not pleased. I am worried about what will happen when he returns to Leeds, because he has been talking about the
	new homes bonus. He has been saying that it is going to all kinds of places, but which authority is in the top 10 for the receipt of new homes bonus? Which authority is at number six and challenging for the top position? Yes, I am talking about Leeds metropolitan authority. The right hon. Gentleman is sticking his nose up at the prospect of the people of Leeds receiving £27.2 million.

Clive Betts: The Secretary of State will remember his visit to the Select Committee just after the Government were formed. I asked the then housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), whether success for the Government, when they are eventually judged on their record,
	“will be building more homes per year than were being built prior to the recession, and that failure will be building less>.”
	The right hon. Gentleman said:
	“Yes. Building more homes is the gold standard on which we shall be judged.”
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) has just said that we were building more than 200,000 homes a year before the recession. When will the Government hit their own targets and hit that figure?

Eric Pickles: Well, as we leave behind the ghost of Stanley Baldwin bequeathed to us by the Labour Front Bench, the figures demonstrate that we are really starting to move. The hon. Gentleman should be rejoicing in the fact that our policies are working.
	In the 2005 manifesto, the previous Labour Government pledged that there would be 1 million more home owners. In reality, home ownership fell by more than 250,000. Yet the aspiration of home ownership has returned. According to the Bank of England, mortgages to first-time buyers are at their highest level. Both the Council for Mortgage Lenders and the Halifax report the same. Thanks to the action taken to tackle the deficit, we have kept interest rates down. The number of repossessions is at its lowest level for five years and continues to fall. The Bank of England reports that the number of new mortgage arrears cases is at its lowest quarterly level since its records began.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that of the 20 local authorities with the worst repossession record for mortgages, 17 are in London? Although he may not wish to address the problems of London, they are substantial and need his attention.

Eric Pickles: I have looked most carefully at the figures. It is not a surprise that the number of repossessions is dropping, and that is something about which we should be pleased. Mortgage approvals are at their highest level for six years. The Mortgage Advice Bureau notes that the number of mortgage products available to house buyers has surpassed the 10,000 mark, and cites Government action as the cause.
	We are taking action to help those with small deposits. Since April, under the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there have been more than 20,000 reservations for new build homes, supporting house building and first-time buyers. Over 90% of the 1,200 house builders registered under the scheme are small to medium-sized developers.
	The Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme has had a further 6,000 applications in the first month, helping hard-working families. The average house price guaranteed under the scheme is just under £160,000.

Andrew Love: The right hon. Gentleman is giving us a whole list of issues related to housing demand, but if there is no response from housing supply all we will get is house price rises. Is he concerned about that?

Eric Pickles: I am coming to supply in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should be a little patient.
	Labour might not have supported the scheme, but Santander has said that Help to Buy has been
	“a major cause of increased confidence in the housing market.”
	We are also helping the less well-off. More than 150,000 new affordable homes have been built in England in the past three years, assisted by our £20 billion affordable housing programme. Thanks to our reforms to the Housing Revenue Account, more council housing has been built in the three years of this Government than in all the 13 years of the previous Labour Government.

Jake Berry: As my right hon. Friend is on the subject of social housing, perhaps he could also confirm to the House that the previous Government, after 13 years, left us with 421,000 fewer social homes than when they took office.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and my speech will confirm that. The social housing stock under Labour’s watch shrunk by 420,000.

Debbie Abrahams: More than 2,300 households in Oldham are affected by the bedroom tax, and there are only 500 properties into which they can move. Furthermore, private sector landlords are not allowing tenancies for people on benefits. Where are those people meant to live?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady should get out more and stop reading reports in the newspapers. The private rented sector represents 70% of all homes and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such activity is widespread or happening in significant numbers. Why would people want to turn away good tenants? Frankly, I deeply regret the way in which she is stigmatising people on housing benefit.

Sheila Gilmore: I did get out and I was standing at my local bus stop, where there is an estate agent, reading the adverts. Nearly 70% of them said, “No DSS”—of course, landlords have not yet realised that the DSS is no more. That is a big change, as I have not seen that for many years, but those of us who get out are aware that that is happening.

Eric Pickles: I am shocked to hear that that is the situation in Scotland, because in England we have a far more civilised way of dealing with these matters.
	John Prescott’s pathfinder programme demolished Victorian terraces across the midlands, but this Government have scrapped the wrecking ball and worked with communities, not against them. We have already brought 85,000 long-term empty properties back into use. We
	have reinvigorated the right to buy, reversing Labour’s savage cuts and helping social tenants get on the housing ladder.
	It is a shame that Labour councillors and Labour MPs oppose the right to buy. Who is the biggest enemy of the right to buy? It is Labour-supporting unions such as Unite, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the GMB, waging class war against the working classes. By contrast, we are on the side of hard-working people. We have changed the rules on housing waiting lists to give priority to the armed forces and to local residents, whereas Labour doled out council housing to foreign nationals.
	We are helping the vulnerable. Homelessness is half the average level it was under the last Labour Government. The average length of time households spend in temporary accommodation has fallen by a third. Housing waiting lists almost doubled under Labour, but thanks to the reforms in the Localism Act 2011, waiting lists have now fallen below the level we inherited. The Home Builders Federation notes that planning approvals for new homes are at their highest since 2007. A survey in September showed that the number of people wanting to extend their home has trebled, thanks to the flexible planning rules that we introduced to restore economic confidence, which were opposed by the Opposition.

David Davies: Does the Secretary of State share my astonishment at the noises coming from Labour Members about house building levels when we all know that in the one area of the UK where Labour is actually in charge, house builders such as Redrow are pulling out? They are doing so because of the increased burden of red tape that the Labour-run Welsh Assembly is putting on the housing industry.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I shall come on to it in a few moments.
	We have scrapped Labour’s regional spatial strategies, which enveloped the planning system in red tape and hindered local plan making. The number of planning appeals has fallen, meaning more local decision making and more decisions “right first time”.
	At the same time, we have protected the environment. The latest official figures, produced last month, show that the number of homes built on the green belt is the lowest on record—four times lower than it was a quarter of a century ago. We have made it easier to get brownfield land back into use by allowing surplus office space to be converted into homes. A survey in September of just 15% of councils reported more than 260 different schemes under those new rights, but the Labour response, from Labour MPs and from members of the London Assembly, is to oppose those new homes.
	We are not just backing large developers—we are supporting self-build by abolishing development taxes such as section 106 and the community infrastructure levy, getting the state off the backs of those who want to build their own homes. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)will welcome that. Labour’s response has been silence, no doubt because Labour councils want to tax people to the hilt.
	We need only to look at Labour’s policies, which we have heard about from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. Labour has a five-year plan and has reinstated
	a national housing target of 200,000 homes a year. The previous Labour Government had a target of 240,000 homes a year, yet house building fell to its worst peacetime level since the 1920s. It is a little like the state targets for the tractors that failed to roll off the Ukrainian production lines.
	How would Labour build new homes? I understand the Opposition have three policies. First, the shadow housing Minister has called for five “new towns”. I remind her that the last Labour Prime Minister promised five new eco-towns in 2007, and then, when they were not built—perhaps in a silent, unconscious tribute to Nikita Khrushchev—increased the number from five to 10. Not a single house was built. Not one. The only thing that eco-towns built was resentment. Labour has simply dusted off and reheated its old policies under a different name. The Government are supporting locally-led large scale development, with more than £500 million of investment. We have kick-started new homes in the likes of Cranbrook, Wokingham and Sherford, and Ebbsfleet will follow very soon.
	Labour’s next policy is so-called land banking, as we have just heard, and is a solution to a problem that does not exist, according to the Office of Fair Trading, Savills and Kate Barker. Of the half a million units with outstanding planning permission, almost 90% have started or are working towards a start. The number of homes on stalled sites is just 59,000 units. The Get Britain Building investment fund, worth more than £500 million, is helping unlock those sites, and we have made things easier by enabling unrealistic section 106 agreements to be renegotiated, making such stalled sites viable—a move opposed every single time by the Labour party.

Alex Cunningham: In Stockton borough, planning permission for hundreds of houses on brownfield sites has existed for years, yet developers are not doing anything. Is it not time that they were helped and encouraged to build more homes on those sites by the idea that they might lose the land, as we suggest?

Eric Pickles: Perhaps we could nationalise them—[Interruption.] I thought that would get the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) excited. Perhaps we should confiscate the land. Perhaps we should use a North Korean solution and start arresting and executing them for failing to do that—[Interruption.] I am afraid that it is that rather daft rhetoric that will dry up all housing supply.
	Labour’s policy of new development taxes and state confiscation of land would have the reverse effect, discouraging developers from complex land assembly projects. House builders will just let their planning permissions lapse or be more cautious about applying for permission in the first place. It is a recipe for fewer homes and a slower planning system.
	Labour’s third policy is the “Right to Grow”, another Labour land grab to allow Labour councils to dump urban sprawl on their rural neighbours and rip up green belt protection. Labour cites the likes of Stevenage—we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—Oxford and York. In every case, the green belt is providing a
	green lung for those towns and cities and the Opposition want Labour councils with no democratic mandate to rip it up.

Gavin Shuker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, not least because he missed Luton off his list of places that Labour has suggested might need a right to grow. In the period running through to 2030, Luton borough requires about 30,000 new homes to keep up with population demand but can only build about 6,000 within the borough. What should Luton do?

Eric Pickles: They should begin to talk to their neighbouring authorities, and stop trying to bully North Hertfordshire council—I have had an opportunity to meet that council—and using terror tactics and being extremely unpleasant. It is the return of Stalinist top-down planning, and the biggest threat to the green belt that the country faces.
	Labour’s policies are like buses: you wait for years, then three come along at once. It has even asked Sir Michael Lyons to come up with a couple more. Under the Labour Government, Sir Michael was paid £400,000 for his last review of Department for Communities and Local Government policy, so I hope that the Labour party is getting him at a cheaper rate. For all of Labour’s lame attempts at policy making, we can see what Labour would be like in reality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) suggested. In Wales, where housing is devolved, Labour runs the Administration, and its record on housing there is a disaster. According to the National House-Building Council, while new home registrations are up in England, they have fallen successively in Wales. Labour has hit the housing market with extra red tape, adding £13,000 to the cost of a new home with measures ranging from building regulations, to fire sprinklers and waste-site management plans. House builders, Redrow, say that due to the burden of regulation:
	“Wales is the most difficult area in the UK in which to operate”.
	Persimmon Homes has pulled out of development in south Wales and the construction firm, Watkin Jones, has shifted its development to England rather than Wales.
	Labour failed to support the housing market, and has belatedly introduced a help to buy equity loan scheme. Watkin Jones added that
	“it is difficult to comprehend why the Welsh Assembly Government are failing to recognise the importance of following the UK Government’s lead in getting much needed homes built.”
	The Welsh Government, true to Labour form, has slashed right to buy. In microcosm, this is the real face of Labour: high tax, high regulation, the enemy of the free market, and the enemy of aspiration.
	I have outlined how the coalition Government’s long-term economic plan is turning the housing market around, but there is more to do to build more homes to meet demand and deal with demographic change. The next spending round will see a further £23 billion of public and private investment in affordable housing. We are looking at further reforms to the housing revenue account to help councils build more homes. Our £1 billion build to rent fund is bringing institutional investment into the private rented sector—something that no Government
	have achieved before. Further change of use reforms will make it easier for redundant and under-used buildings to be converted to housing. We will deliver fairness in social housing by ending taxpayer subsidies to high-income social tenants—people like Bob Crow.
	Our economic plan is for the long term. Contrary to the doom and gloom of the Labour party, which wants to talk our nation down, our economy is on the mend, thanks to the hard work of the British people, and thanks to tough decisions to tackle the deficit left by Labour and to clean up their mess. Our policy is firing up the kilns, bringing the brickies on site, and getting Britain building again. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Labour motion, and I commend the Government’s housing record to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: There will be a four-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions. The next speaker is Ronnie Campbell.

Ronnie Campbell: I listened intently to the Secretary of State. I remember—this is going back a long time; I have been here 26 years—that when we came to power in 1997 on the back of 18 years of Tory rule, houses were crumbling and falling to bits. If Members look at the record, they will see that in that period Labour put at least £9 billion or £10 billion into refurbishing houses. In my constituency, I remember new kitchens and bathrooms going in, and new roofs going on the houses. A lot of work was done, so when the Secretary of State knocks the Labour Government, he should remember what they did to refurbish houses that were neglected in the previous 18 years of the Tory Government.
	I want to talk about Northumberland. The county council has a waiting list of 10,000 people. It is not a big area, but it is rural and sparsity is an issue. A lot of houses are needed in the countryside and there is a big problem, as the Secretary of State said. There are not many brownfield sites in the countryside, and in extreme circumstances we may have to use green-belt areas, as has been said. There is always a problem in the countryside, because it does not want houses to be built, so there is a big demonstration about it. I do not know where the kids are going to live—sometimes we have to put houses in the countryside.
	Northumberland county council has a plan to build 2,000 houses a year, which would constitute 300 jobs a year. That would put a lot of money into the economy—the council reckons £10 million, if it can get the programme going. The only problem is that, at this moment in time, it is completing 191 affordable houses. I do not have a problem with Help to Buy—if young people have a bit of money and want to buy their own home, that is their right—but we need houses for the poor and those people who cannot, even with Help to Buy, afford to buy. We need to build homes for them. There are 10,000 people on the waiting list in Northumberland, which has a population of only 300,000, and there is a problem with people trying to get houses.
	Under the county’s core strategy, at least 30% of the 2,000 houses that it is trying to build will be affordable for poor people who cannot afford to buy a home on their own. There are three sites in my constituency
	where building is under way. I am going tomorrow to have my photograph taken at one where the last house is just being finished—I will be proud to see it, as it is an affordable house. Something is being done, but it is very, very little—it is not enough—and the engine needs to go faster and faster so that we can build more.
	We have land in Amble, Berwick, Corbridge, Craster, Embleton, Shilbottle, Rothbury and Wooler. They are not in Blyth—I am in the big town—but in the countryside, where we have land to build. One or two sites might encroach on the green belt, but not by very much, and Northumberland county council really does not want to use that land, as it wants to build houses where they are needed. They are needed in those places in the countryside. I hear Members saying, “You can’t build in villages; you can’t build here,” but we have to build in villages, as they have to survive.
	The green belt is a problem, and I hate to see it being built on—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Mark Pawsey: It is entirely right that we should debate the serious issue of housing this afternoon, but I am afraid that the Opposition have picked the wrong time to table a motion with such wording, as it does not reflect at all the state of the market, which is decidedly upbeat. However, those words might have been appropriate in 2010, when house building under Labour fell to its lowest level for nearly 100 years and Labour was consistently breaking promises on what it would do regarding housing.
	I took the trouble to read the 2007 conference speech made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—his first speech after becoming Prime Minister—in which he promised that Labour would provide 240,000 new homes a year. The following year, the figure for new homes was 115,000—the lowest since the 1920s. Labour said that it would build eco-homes, and it kicked off with five communities, which went up to 10. That was going to be the centrepiece of its housing policy, but none of the communities was ever built or developed. Labour presided over a period of regional spatial strategies, with a top-down “central Government know best” system, but that simply failed to push forward land for development.
	The words in the motion are wrong, because things are starting to happen with housing. The Government’s policies have begun to bear fruit, and nationally nearly 400,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010, and starts are up by 23%. The improvement applies not only to owner occupation: 99,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2011, which is halfway towards delivering the 170,000 homes that the Government seek to deliver by 2015.
	The Government’s initiatives to encourage home ownership are working. The Help to Buy scheme, which was launched in April 2013, is allowing people to get started on the housing ladder. There were 5,000 sales in the first six months and 1,000 house builders are registered. The importance of small and medium-sized developers has already been mentioned, and some 90% of the developers registered under Help to Buy are small or medium-sized companies. There are now 11 lenders covering the scheme. We are also meeting the
	aspirations of those in the social housing sector who wish to buy their own home by invigorating the right to buy.
	My constituency is in the middle of England, and it sits in the middle of many statistics. In 2010, the number of new builds in Rugby fell by 62%, which was inconsistent with the level across the country as a whole, but in 2012-13, housing starts in the constituency increased by 260% to their highest level since 2007-08. Included in those figures is the gateway development of Eden park, which the housing Minister visited last February, where three developers are building 1,400 new homes—and selling them as fast as they can build them. The positive attitude to development in my constituency is reflected by an application for 6,200 new homes that will come before the local authority’s planning committee tomorrow, so things are moving across the country, especially in my constituency.
	What would have happened if Labour was in power? With regard to measures on land banking, we have heard about state confiscation. The Home Builders Federation, the industry’s trade body, has said that there is no incentive for land banking.

Marcus Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between his constituency and mine, where we have a Labour-run local authority, is that his local authority works with local people to deliver these things, rather than imposing things that they do not want?

Mark Pawsey: My local authority has a record of going out and consulting local people. It has brought together a local plan. We are living in a plan-led system, and those authorities that do not have a plan in place will experience difficulties, as I know is the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
	Confiscating land is no way to solve the problem. House builders want to build houses and there are no incentives for sitting on land. The Opposition’s policy would result in fewer houses being built, because house building would become a risky business to invest in and fewer people would invest in house building companies. Developers supply what the market demands. There has not been demand in the market in recent years, but the steps that the Government have taken, such as through Help to Buy, have reinvigorated demand.
	Labour is also calling for new towns and garden cities, but its eco-towns did not work. A much better way of delivering houses is through sustainable urban extensions, such as those coming forward in constituencies such as mine.

Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the Secretary of State, as he departs the Chamber, on a brilliant knockabout performance that bore as close a resemblance to housing policy as my garden shed does to One Hyde Park. He emphasised what the Government have achieved, but they have achieved very little; what he gave us was a rehash of old figures.
	We are facing a housing crisis that has been preceded by 30 years of housing neglect due to 18 years of disinvestment under the Conservatives and 13 years of
	inadequate investment under Labour, simply because there were other priorities at the time, such as education and the health service. We have since had four years of cuts and low-level production. Members have talked about levels of house building not seen since Stanley Baldwin’s time, but when the Government came into office, why did they not seize the opportunity to boost the economy by building houses, as was done in the 1930s—in Stanley Baldwin’s time—as a means of recovering from recession?

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government did not build enough houses, but I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) on the significant investment that went into the existing stock. My borough of Gateshead benefitted from nearly £200 million as part of the decent homes programme to reinvigorate the existing stock.

Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. We did a good job on decent homes and a limited job on home building, but it was just not enough, given the scale of the problem.
	Our present commitment is to build 200,000 houses, which I welcome. However, I argue that we also need a commitment to more public housing for rent. Let us talk not about affordable housing, because it never is affordable, but about public housing for rent, because that provides for the greatest need. Two fifths of the population—the figure is higher in some parts of the country, especially London—simply cannot afford to buy and cannot raise the money for a mortgage without long years of struggle or winning the national lottery. Those are the people who we need to help. We need a big build of public housing for rent to provide for their needs, and that is also needed to bring down the housing benefit bill, because the reason why it is now so high is because we have not built council and social housing, which is much cheaper to provide.
	The Government’s proposals, inadequate and belated as they are, will make things worse because increasing the discounts on the sale of council houses means reducing the stock of available housing to meet people’s needs. That policy will certainly not generate enough revenue to pay for new building. We should have a rule that every council house sold must be replaced by a new one. If we had introduced such a sensible provision from the start, we would have maintained the housing stock.
	The fact is that private sector build has not risen to 200,000 for many years. According to Shelter, its highest ever total was 175,000. We need a more public housing for rent, which we always had in the past. We could provide for that by removing the cap on local authority borrowing and channelling money into contracts to build. We could ease the situation—perhaps as with the Bank of England’s quantitative easing—by helping the housing associations, which currently face huge problems with arrears, largely because of the bedroom tax. They need help, so they must be allowed to revalue their stock so that they can raise money.
	Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, all the evidence points to a need for a massive attempt to build public housing for rent, which would energise the economy and put people back to work. That is the only way out
	of a crisis resulting from 30 years of neglect and house building rates well below the target that we need, which is 240,000 a year.

Alec Shelbrooke: I will focus my remarks on my constituency and on Leeds. The housing stock obviously needs to be increased, but I have taken issue with the Leeds core strategy and the amount of housing it says needs to be built over the next 15 years. The university of Leeds—that august institution is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—has stated that building 70,000 houses in Leeds would not be completed until 2060, which raises the question: why should they be built over the next 15 years? There is therefore an argument to be had about housing figures in different parts of the country.
	I totally disagree with the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, about villages needing to expand to cope with the housing crisis. One of the major pieces of legislation that this Government have brought in introduces neighbourhood plans, which allow people in the villages in a local area to say, “If we want our village to survive—the little local shop to carry on, the pub to survive, continued use of the village hall, and so on—we need to invest in housing.” People in some of my villages may feel that we need more bungalows for elderly people, while those in other villages may feel that there is not enough affordable housing and that we need to build two-bedroom terraced homes that would help young people to stay in the village where they were brought up.
	The problem that we have in Leeds and in my constituency is that as soon as these plans are proposed, the developer says, “Well, that’s very good, but actually I want to build not 20 houses there but 200 or 400 houses.” That would completely change the nature of the villages in my constituency. Leeds city council has deemed that the constituency overall has to take 1,200 houses. If we put that in the context of there being 41,000 houses to start with, we can see that it represents an enormous expansion. Under these plans, the villages of Micklefield and Kippax and the town of Garforth will all blend into one huge development. I believe that the figures are wrong, as I said when I gave evidence on the core strategy, and if I had more time I would expand on that. However, the local authority has the power to identify more sensibly where larger-scale developments could go.
	I am unashamed to say on the record that I support the idea of freeing up land in the northern part of my constituency in an area called Headley Fields, which is out towards the parish of Bramham, the village that I reside in, although nowhere near it. That land could take the housing allocation for the next 15 years proposed by Leeds city council. Because it was there and could be planned from day one, proper infrastructure, such as transport facilities, pubs, schools, and doctors surgeries could be put in place. At the moment we face the problem of 5,000 houses coming in through what I call death by a thousand cuts—putting 400 houses into a village here and 400 houses into a village there. That would mean that not enough would come out of the new homes bonus to provide the extra facilities, such as the local schools, that were needed.
	I do not believe that we should build garden cities, but there is certainly an argument for building new villages in areas and not expanding the existing villages. Planning as a whole in order to have the necessary facilities built in those villages is a better way forward than adding developments on to each village. The neighbourhood plans that this Government have empowered local communities to use can then be put into full effect.

Gavin Shuker: Like me, many Member, particularly those on the Labour Benches but perhaps others as well, will have had the experience of knocking on doors in our constituencies, peeking behind the door and seeing people living in terrible squalor in poor private sector rental accommodation and at the hands of their landlords. When we talk about housing, we are not just talking about building new family homes, important though that is; it is also incredibly important to realise that a lack of housing supply hits the most vulnerable the most.
	I want to say a few words about the place where I live, was born, grew up, went to school in, and now represent—Luton—and why I believe that it is time for radical action. In Luton, through to 2030, we will require some 23,500 to 33,500 new dwellings. That is an enormous number. It points to the fact that Luton is a town with a young population and large families and has a large population that has increased through the migration of successive generations. It has always had to look just beyond its boundaries in order to expand. That process has ground to a halt, and we are facing serious challenges.
	There is limited capacity regarding developable land in Luton. We reckon we could squeeze in about 6,000 homes in the next 15 to 20 years, but we have to balance that against other competing needs. What is the point of a house without a job to go with it? How do we provide good-quality green space? We have a massive problem with primary school allocation that will become a massive problem with secondary school allocation. We need to build new schools, let alone new houses. This is where the challenge arises, and I can appreciate it because I hear about it in many of the places that I visit. I am a Labour activist, and I sometimes share the frustration about our record in government in delivering more homes. However, people forget that, from 1997 to 2010 across the six counties in the east of England, we built the equivalent of a seventh county in terms of housing, and that was still not enough to keep up with the demand that existed.
	It is important that we have new towns, garden cities, and so on, but, particularly in the south-east of England, we need to grapple with the problem whereby towns feel that they are unable to expand when we know that there is a great social need for them to do so. That is why I welcome the proposals made by Labour Front Benchers on the right to grow, which would give local authorities powers that they otherwise would not have. It is very different from a top-down solution such as the former regional spatial strategies that set a specific target. We need a new arbitration body to enable discussions between local authorities to take place, but also, crucially, to reach a conclusion whereby we agree together what we need to build and how we are going to build it.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend will have heard the Secretary of State’s rather tongue-in-cheek proposal to nationalise brownfield sites, which really do need development. At the same time, his Department is approving development on greenfield sites in the neighbouring constituency to mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should incentivise brownfield site development in order to get building done there instead?

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pendulum has swung away from brownfield development as a result of this Government’s changes. That is why we should bring in a right to grow in conjunction with the pendulum swinging back towards using brownfield first. These things are not rocket science, but there is political ideology behind them. That is why the Secretary of State’s dismissal of our proposals was so short-sighted. We all recognise that we need more housing and further housing growth. That requires a mechanism that balances the requirements of local authorities to deliver for the people in their borough boundaries with the need to be good neighbours as well. Ministers are scaremongering about greenfield sites being used, but that would take place within the context of the existing national planning framework.
	If we are to find a workable solution to many of the problems we face in allowing towns to expand, we will need to have an overall mechanism, but this Government have put in place a series of different mechanisms. They try one, try the other, try the next, change the rules, issue a press release and make an announcement, but we have not seen the delivery, and that is because it is hard to do this stuff. Bold political leadership is required to bring it about.

Andrew Stunell: I start by making a declaration—not one that appears in my entry in the register but to say that I spent 13 years working in the architects department of a new town, putting up homes, factories and shops. It was very easy to do that because there was no local consultation, no involvement of local democracy, no hassle, and no localism. I want to hear a little from Labour Front Benchers about the strong tension between the words in their motion about creating new towns and their recent paper-thin conversion to a commitment to localism.
	I also want to hear from Labour Front Benchers, as I heard from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), a word of apology. In the 13 years that Labour were in Government, Stockport lost 2,683 social homes and none were built in their place, and 421,000 homes were lost from the social housing stock across the whole of England, which the hon. Gentleman, to his credit, pointed out.
	At the height of the boom in 2003, 90,000 homes were lost. In 2004, 71,000 were lost and in 2005 the figure was 69,000. In those three years alone, 230,000 social homes for rent—a quarter of a million homes—were lost from the housing stock. That took the number of homes in the social rented sector below 4 million for the first time since 1955. At that time, the shadow Chancellor was telling us that there should be less regulation of banks and the then Prime Minister was telling us, solemnly and repeatedly, that he had got rid of boom and bust. He turned out to be 50% right: he had got rid
	of the boom. It would be good to hear a word of apology for not just the housing situation we inherited, but the financial situation, too.
	The coalition Government have started to put things right. Our £4.5 billion investment programme is delivering social homes for rent at only half the public subsidy required under Labour. Labour took us below the 4 million homes mark nine years ago. It took another six years of Labour Government to take us a further 72,000 homes below that, but I am very pleased indeed that it has taken three years for the coalition Government to bring them back.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that one of the reasons he is able to stand up and say that the subsidy for building affordable homes will be lower is that they will not be truly affordable homes? That will result in yet another ratcheting up of the housing benefit bill. The cost, therefore, will be considerable.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact of the matter is that we are replacing social and affordable homes that should never have been lost in the first place: 421,000 homes were lost from the stock. As every expert, academic and, indeed, politician recognises, if we want growth in housing overall, there has to be growth in social housing. Labour blew its chance to deliver that and it is the coalition that is creating the opportunity for it to happen.
	Contrary to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, this country now has a policy whereby, when a social home is sold, another will be built in its place. He would be right to say that it takes a little while to get the planning permission and other stuff in place, but the policy and the delivery of it are there. [Interruption.] I ask the groaners on the Opposition Benches: where was that policy during their 13 years? Some 400,000 homes were lost and no attempt whatever was made to replace them, leaving the waiting list at a record level. As the Secretary of State reported, it has now, thank goodness, dropped.
	The Liberal Democrat influence on this coalition Government means that we are delivering more social homes and, at the end of this Parliament, we will have an increased stock, not a reduced stock, which is exactly what Labour left us with—a reduction of 421,000. We shall have an increase of 150,000. I am proud of that, and all Government Members should be proud of it, too.

Clive Betts: If people listened to Government Members, they would not think there was a housing crisis in this country—but there is, because there are people who come to my surgery who cannot get a home to live in or who cannot get a home that they need. They cannot afford the rising prices or the rising prices. That is this country’s housing crisis.
	I challenge the Secretary of State with the comments made by his then Housing Minister to the Communities and Local Government Committee three years ago, when he said that the “gold standard” on which the Government would be judged was building more homes than were being built before the recession. The Government have been building about half the number of homes
	that were built before the recession. However they choose to dress up the figures, they have failed by their own standards.
	As some of my colleagues have said, that is not a terribly hard standard to meet, because the Labour Government did not build enough homes. We built more homes than this Government are building, but we did not build enough. We had a brilliant record on the decent homes programme and on putting right the wrongs of the underinvestment of the previous Tory Government, who allowed the stock to deteriorate, but we did not build enough homes.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Labour Government spent £18 billion in 1997 to sort out 1.5 million homes.

Clive Betts: Absolutely, and that brought great delight to many tenants up and down the country.
	The Government can pray in aid the fact that with the fallout from the banking crisis the private housing sector in this country suffered a decline in demand, but they compounded the problem by cutting the social housing budget by 60%. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) was at that time a Minister in the Government who allowed that to happen, and he should stand up and apologise for it. The reality is that the cut was 60%. Government expenditure as a whole was cut by 20%, but social housing capital expenditure was singled out for the biggest cut of all major Government programmes, which has compounded the problem and made it worse.
	I welcome the Labour leadership’s commitment to move towards building 200,000 homes in this country by 2020. That is a good commitment, but I want to see it go further in the longer term: we must get to 250,000 to get demand and supply back in sync. The reality is that the construction industry in this country is now in such a mess that it could not respond more quickly to a higher target: prices of bricks and labour are already going up in the industry, because it has got down to such a low level. It is therefore realistic to set that target.
	The issue is that the private sector in this country, as has already been said, has never built consistently more than 150,000 homes. If we are to get up to a figure of 200,000, a large part of that must come from the social housing sector, from local authorities and housing associations. To enable that to happen, we will have to spend some public money. We must all recognise that: if this is a crisis that is a priority for us to deal with, some public expenditure will have to go in as well.
	I hope that we can get to a general situation in which we recognise that to achieve the stabilisation of house prices and rents, as has happened in Germany, housing supply has to meet housing demand in the long term. How to achieve that will require the sort of cross-party agreement that we had in the 1960s and 1970s, when successive Governments of different political persuasions built the homes that the country needed. I hope that we can get back to such a situation.
	I want to refer to my Select Committee’s 2012 report on “Financing of new housing supply”, in which we considered and proposed the idea of a housing bank, with guarantees for institutional investment to go into the social housing and private housing sectors. I recognise that the Government have gone a little way towards that, but not sufficiently. That has been done in the
	Netherlands; why cannot we do it here? Instead of giving guarantees for mortgages, let us put them into building homes.
	We could take the cap off local authority borrowing, and 60,000 homes could be built immediately. I think that that has cross-party support in the House, so why do the Government not do that? It would not cost any more taxpayers’ money, and it could be done instantly.
	We could look at the housing grant paid to housing associations, which lies on their books as a debt. If it was released tomorrow and that grant was written off—again, there would be no cost to the Treasury, because it has already been paid out—we could free up housing associations’ ability to borrow and build more homes as well.
	We could look at self-build, which is the hidden element in a potential housing renewal. The Government could go to see what has been done in the Netherlands, where there is not so much self-building as self-constructing, which involves getting local authorities to lay out sites and getting planners involved on a simple basis. They could go to see how people in the Netherlands, often with the involvement of small builders, are building their own homes—the homes they want, because they have designed them—at about 80% of the cost of a house bought from a private developer. That could be another element.
	There is no one silver bullet, but the report includes several measures which, if the Government implemented them straight away, would help to remove the immediate problems of the housing crisis and set us in the right direction.

Annette Brooke: I will be very brief, but I want to pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) about the good initiatives taken by this Government. The fact is that there are more social homes than when we took office in 2010. Progress has been made, and one could rattle off the many good things that have been introduced. They include, for example, encouragement for empty homes to be brought back into use, which is a win-win situation. There is also the whole concept of neighbourhood planning—really involving communities in making important decisions that will increase the supply of housing.
	Obviously, however, there is more to do. I appreciate that the limit on the housing revenue account has been raised, but I want the borrowing cap to be raised for all councils. I would like more initiatives to increase land supply. There was a pledge to pilot community land auctions, and I would be interested to know what progress has been made on them. There are therefore innovative things that we can do. The answer is not to knock the very good work that has been done, but to accept that there is consensus on tackling our real housing crisis, and on the fact that by tackling it we can contribute to economic growth and create important jobs and apprenticeships for young people. We can create a win-win situation.

Emma Reynolds: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. We have had a wide-ranging discussion about housing, which is an
	issue that is close to the hearts of many of my constituents and important to people across the country.
	It is patently clear that the Government are in complete denial about two things: the scale of the housing crisis that we face and the scale of their failure to tackle that crisis. I was astonished that the Secretary of State came here today to tell us that we should rejoice in the “sustained turnaround” in the housing market. His statements fly in the face of the facts. Last year, only 107,000 homes were completed. That is not even half the number of homes that is needed to keep up with demand according to the figures of his own Department.
	It is regrettable that the Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the 1920s. If the current trends were to continue, there would be a breathtaking housing shortage of some 2 million homes by 2020. The housing shortage is central to the cost of living crisis. Young people and families across England are struggling to get on the housing ladder and struggling with rents that are at a record high. The first thing that the Government did when they got into power was to cut the affordable homes budget by 60%—a huge cut. It is therefore no surprise that in the last year alone, there has been a 29% drop in the number of affordable homes that are being built.
	There are fewer home owners since the election, despite the previous housing Minister, who is now Chairman of the Conservative party, claiming that the Government would increase home ownership. Tragically, homelessness and rough sleeping have risen in every year under this Government. Both are up by about a third since 2010. The number of families who are in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation is tragically at a 10-year high.
	What is the Government’s approach to the biggest housing crisis in a generation? It seems to be a flurry of announcements. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said in his opening speech, there have been no fewer than 400 announcements in the past three and a half years. However, their many warm words have not been matched by action.
	It seems that the housing Minister recognises that that is a problem. He came to the House in November and told us that
	“the new homes bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 11.]
	Rather confusingly, he said later in a written parliamentary answer to me that it was an incentive to build homes. Perhaps today—third time lucky—he will clarify what the new homes bonus is for. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both concluded that it has had little impact on housing supply.
	On the demand side, the Government have introduced Help to Buy. We strongly support help for first-time buyers but, crucially, Help to Buy must be matched by help to build. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who sits around the Cabinet table with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the cross-party Treasury Committee and the former Governor of the Bank of England have all said that the scheme carries risks for the economy. The Prime Minister’s new housing adviser, Alex Morton, has gone even further by saying that it risks detonating
	a bomb under the British economy. However, the Government continue to do next to nothing to boost supply, which is pushing home ownership further out of reach for young people and families.
	While the Government are clearly complacent, the Labour party understands the scale of the challenge. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced in September that a Labour Government would build at least 200,000 homes a year by 2020. That is a realistic but ambitious agenda. We have asked Sir Michael Lyons to chair a commission that will draw up a detailed road map towards that aim, which is effectively to double the level of house building. There are specific areas that the commission will consider and specific problems that the Government are reluctant to recognise. I will refer to those briefly. The first concerns problems with the land market, the second is the restriction on communities’ right to grow, and the third is the lack of any action by the Government on new garden cities and new towns.
	First, there are deep and structural problems with the land market. My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) have stressed that even in the good times the private sector did not deliver anywhere near the number of homes we need to keep up with demand. It is clear that developers are sitting on land and waiting for its value to increase. The Government seem to be in denial about land banking—although some of their Back Benchers seem to recognise it as a problem—but the International Monetary Fund and the Conservative Mayor of London clearly say it is a problem. We intend to give local authorities the power to escalate fees on developers who sit on land, and if that does not work to use compulsory purchase orders if those developers still refuse to get on and build the houses that this country so desperately needs and for which communities are crying out.
	We also have a problem with the dominance of big house builders. Small house builders face major problems accessing land as well as finance, and the market is dominated by a few big house builders. That was not always the case; in the late 1980s, small and medium-sized house builders delivered two-thirds of new homes, but now SME builders build only around one third of new homes. We must find ways to make the market more diverse and competitive—I hope we can agree on that.
	Secondly, over the past three and a half years we have had warm words—in particular from the Deputy Prime Minister, but also earlier from the Prime Minister—about garden cities, yet not one measure has been taken to put in place conditions to deliver them. It was even reported last week at the start of the new year that the Prime Minister has forbidden Ministers from identifying any sites for potential new towns during this Parliament. Some would say that is pouring cold water on the proposal; others might say it is putting it into a deep freeze. Labour, on the other hand, is committed to new towns, which must form part of the solution to the housing crisis. The post-war Labour Government started 11 new towns because they had the determination and vision to act. That is exactly what we need now and what the Government are lacking. The Lyons commission is looking at ways to incentivise local authorities to come up with sites, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor recently committed a Labour Treasury
	to using guarantees—much like those provided for the Help to Buy scheme—to support the building of new towns.

Mark Prisk: I understand that the hon. Lady is on the record as saying that five new towns will be built in the first five years of a Labour Government. What funding does she have for that?

Emma Reynolds: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his time as housing Minister. I actually said—he did not read out a direct quote—that I would love to see a Labour Government starting four or five new towns. We are looking at current legislation on new towns, and also to learn lessons from the generation of new towns that were delivered in the post-war period. We have asked Sir Michael Lyons and a panel of experts, including the Town and Country Planning Association and the big home builder Barratt—[Interruption.] Well, we have done more than the Secretary of State is doing. He may chunter at me from a sedentary position, but he has done exactly nothing on this agenda and is incredibly complacent.

Mark Prisk: rose—

Emma Reynolds: I will not give way again to the same person.
	Finally, the Government are in complete denial about the situation of towns and cities such as Stevenage, Oxford and Luton—which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) spoke eloquently about—where local communities are crying out for new homes but neighbouring local authorities are blocking them every step of the way. The Government introduced the duty to co-operate, but they must accept that those fine words are not translated into action. Half a million pounds has been paid out to lawyers in Stevenage over the dispute with North Hertfordshire. I would rather that money was spent on bricks and mortar.

Stephen McPartland: rose—

Emma Reynolds: I am running out of time and I think the hon. Gentleman had a chance to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). In conclusion, in order to boost the number of homes being built, crucially we need leadership from both central Government and local government. Regrettably, this Government are failing to step up to the plate. Warm words are simply not good enough and our constituents deserve better. Other countries manage to get this right and it should not be beyond us to do so too. That is why I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support tonight’s motion.

Kris Hopkins: May I first offer my condolences to the family of Paul Goggins? When I was appointed to this position, he very kindly welcomed me. He was generous in the way that he approached many Members across the House, and he was passionate about housing too. I put on record my condolences to his family and friends.
	This is a valuable and important debate. Like the Secretary of State, I congratulate the Opposition on securing their second debate on housing since 2010. The Leader of the Opposition says that housing is an important part of their agenda, but to have secured only two Opposition day debates in that time does not demonstrate the passion that his party claims it has for housing. The debate gives us an opportunity to remind the House and the country of the mess left by the previous Labour Government, and of the Opposition’s preference for old, top-down diktats by which they tell the country what to do, and tell councils and local people what they should be doing and where they should be living.

Stephen McPartland: Will the Minister give way?

Kris Hopkins: By all means.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the “Right to Grow” policy, which Labour launched in my Stevenage constituency without telling me in advance, is already in tatters? Stevenage borough council’s published draft local plan makes no reference whatever to the need for additional housing in North Hertfordshire district council. There have been no representations made between the offices of the two different authorities, and North Hertfordshire is currently doing its local plan.

Kris Hopkins: If it is the case that those representations have not been made, my hon. Friend may want to write to the Prime Minister. If that was my local council and my neighbouring council was going to raid my green belt and green spaces to facilitate housing in a neighbouring council, I would imagine that, like him, I would be extremely unhappy.
	Despite the Opposition’s claims, it was under the previous Administration that house building fell to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s, with only 107,000 homes completed in 2010. They imposed regional targets on local communities as part of their top-down regime. Their approach is that Whitehall and Labour know better. The complete failure to invest between 1997 and 2010 resulted, as has been said, in some 427,000 fewer social houses. Under this Government, come 2015 there will be more social housing—something that Members recognise—and we can be extremely proud of that. In contrast to Labour’s record, we have given people local control of neighbourhood planning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has just said. I encourage local authorities that have not completed their local plan to get on with it, to engage with their local communities and give power to local individuals to shape their community, and to remove red tape.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the Government’s progress in this Parliament in allowing local people to engage with local authorities on planning would be completely undermined by a Labour Government who would go back to the Stalinist tactic of land seizure and building wherever they want?

Kris Hopkins: It is clear, as an hon. Member said earlier, that localism is just paper thin for Labour. The number of first-time buyers is at a five-year high. Help to Buy has made a significant contribution, helping hard-working families to buy their own home; promoting
	quality and choice in the rented sector by bringing in private incentives and not just using expensive taxpayer subsidies; and helping small and medium-sized builders to get back on their feet—more than 1,000 registered builders are now supporting the Help to Buy equity scheme.

Chris Williamson: On public subsidies, is the Minister happy that for every £4 that goes in housing benefit, only £1 is spent building homes? Surely, it would be better to reverse that and build homes at affordable rents that people can live in.

Kris Hopkins: If we did not have a £180 billion deficit, we might be in a better position to offer more public subsidy, but we do not have that opportunity because the last Government nearly bankrupted the country.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Kris Hopkins: No, I will not take any more interventions.
	One of the common themes of this debate was that, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) recognised, Labour did not deliver enough housing while in power. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) is a huge supporter of housing growth, and I know from my conversations with him that he is committed to ensuring that local communities shape their own housing. I look forward to further debates about large-scale housing, which I know he greatly supports. On land banking, he said that confiscating land was not the way forward and that if Labour’s policy was implemented, it would result in fewer houses being built.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) said many things and recognised that Labour did not deliver enough houses, but he also referred to his garden shed. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) talked about local plans and a strong local voice, and I know that he is a powerful voice in his community. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) talked about localism and the increasing number of social houses. He also pointed out that Labour delivered 50% of its desire to get rid of boom and bust—it got rid of the boom bit. [Laughter.] I am sorry for stealing the line. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House should listen to the Minister.

Kris Hopkins: The Chairman of the Select Committee also recognised that Labour did not deliver enough houses when in government.
	On this issue, as on many, Labour has a problem with credibility. It was the party that allowed access to mortgages six, seven, eight times individuals’ salaries. It was a totally unsustainable path that contributed to the banking crisis that led to the deepest recession since the 1920s. Even in the boom years, it failed to deliver the required housing. The total build dropped to the lowest number in 100 years. It promoted eco-towns—10 in total—but not one appeared. New Labour at its finest: all spin and absolutely no delivery.
	Not only did Labour fail to deliver the houses promised, having nearly bankrupted the country, it took the livelihoods of 250,000 construction workers and destroyed thousands of businesses by its actions. It talks about a cost-of-living crisis, but how many families did it break by its actions? How many meals did it take off the table by its actions? How many summer holidays were lost? How many more homeless people were created by its actions? Yet it never apologises. It always blames somebody else. It is the “Not me, guv!” party. In 2007, the number of housing completions reached 176,000. By 2010, that had dropped to 107,000—a drop of 70,000 houses in three years. That is what it achieved. That is what Labour did for housing in this country and that is why we are still putting things right.
	As housing Minister, I have had the privilege of meeting mothers from Peckham who have secured a shared ownership home; a right-to-buy couple from Swindon who have now got their own home; a young couple who have a house as a consequence of help to buy; builders in Sheffield building houses yet again; and businesses and brick factories in Stoke, working flat out. We know that houses are important to the economy, which is why we are determined to deliver more of them.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 234, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Eleanor Laing: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Clive Efford: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned that the clustering of betting shops in or close to deprived communities is being driven by increasing revenue from fixed odds betting terminals (FOBT) rather than traditional over the counter betting; believes that this has encouraged betting shop operators to open more than one premises in close proximity to one another; is aware of the growing concern in many communities about the detrimental effect this is having on the diversity and character of UK high streets; is alarmed that people can stake as much as £100 every 20 seconds on these machines; is further concerned that the practice of single staffing in betting shops leaves staff vulnerable and deters them from intervening if customers suffer heavy losses thereby undermining efforts by the betting industry to protect vulnerable customers; further believes that local authorities should be able to establish a separate planning class for betting shops and that they should be given additional licensing powers to determine the number of FOBT machines within existing and proposed shops and to require that the machines are modified to slow the rate of play and to interrupt when people play for long periods; and calls on the Government to put local people before the interests of the betting shop operators and give local authorities the powers they need to respond to concerns from their local communities and stop the proliferation of FOBT machines and betting shops.
	Many people throughout the country are concerned about the impact of betting shops on their high streets. They are worried that the shops are clustered in close proximity to one another, and that they are too often close to communities with high levels of deprivation. We are not suggesting that there is a problem in every community, which is why we are not proposing that the Government should introduce a blanket ban. Instead, we are calling for local councillors to be given real powers so that they are able to respond to the concerns of their local communities and to act responsibly in the interests of the people who elect them. Too often, we hear of councillors being frustrated that they are unable to support local residents. Time after time, people turn up at local planning or licensing meetings and watch in disbelief as councillors who are known to oppose plans are forced to allow another betting shop to open because the legal process favours the lawyers representing the interests of the betting shops. That cannot go on. It causes people to lose faith in local democracy, and we will stop it. Councillors must be allowed some discretion; they should not be expected simply to rubber-stamp such applications.

Andrew Percy: I chaired the local licensing authority in the city of Hull when the Gambling Act 2005 was brought in, and we were absolutely frustrated in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the House for that legislation, which gave local councillors such as me no discretion at all?

Clive Efford: The legislation that brought in fixed odds betting terminals actually predated the Gambling Act, but in that Act we limited the number of machines to four per shop. What is unprecedented is the fact that the amount of money that can be taken from the machines is now greater than what can be taken from
	over-the-counter betting, and that is what is driving the clustering of betting shops on our high streets. However, the Government are refusing to deal with the problem. They must accept that there are more betting shops close to areas of high deprivation. This is borne out by research—

Alex Cunningham: rose—

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Clive Efford: I will certainly give way when I have finished making this point.
	A report into machine density by experts in gambling including Heather Wardle, who leads key studies such as the gambling prevalence survey, has stated:
	“The distribution of gambling machines in Great Britain…displays a significant association with areas of socio-economic deprivation. The profile of the resident population living in HDMZs”—
	high-density machine zones—
	“mirrors the profile of those most at-risk of experiencing harm from gambling.”
	We cannot stand back and allow this to continue.

Alex Cunningham: In my constituency there is one fixed odds betting terminal for every 700 people who are eligible to play them, and the vast majority are in areas of high deprivation. In Broadland, a southern constituency, there is one machine for every 18,300 people. Is that not a clear confirmation that the poor are being targeted by this empty promise of great wealth? Do we not need to do something about this?

Clive Efford: Sadly, that situation is repeated in too many places throughout the country, and it is time that the Government recognised that the problem can be dealt with only at a local level.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

David Burrowes: rose—

Clive Efford: I shall give way to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about how betting shops and fixed odds betting terminals are proliferating in some of our most deprived areas. We have 70 FOBTs in Brighton, Pavilion alone. Does he share my concern that some betting shops are now cutting the hourly wages of their staff, but offering them the chance to make up the loss if they can increase the profit from the machines? Is not that completely unacceptable?

Clive Efford: It is, and it flies in the face of the betting industry’s claims about how it trains its staff to deal with problem gambling, because the industry is incentivising them to encourage people to gamble more.

David Burrowes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his promise. A briefing from the Salvation Army says that after the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, the number of gambling addicts increased by more than 50% between 2007 and 2010—a rise of 115,000 people. What—or, more pertinently, who—is responsible for that?

Clive Efford: We could have a debate about that question itself, because there are many forms of gambling due to which people become addicts, especially given
	the rise in online gambling, which has grown into a £2 billion industry over the past few years. It is therefore difficult to extrapolate who is responsible. However, we should do the appropriate research into the impact of FOBTs on problem gambling.

Andy Slaughter: I understand why Government Back Benchers want to deviate from the subject, given that it is about deprivation and targeting poorer communities. There are 136 such machines in my constituency, which is double the number in its prosperous neighbouring constituencies. This is the betting industry targeting the poor.

Clive Efford: I certainly think that the machines are an example of Cameron’s Britain, where there is one rule for our constituents and another for the big businesses that run the betting shops.

Barry Sheerman: My constituency of Huddersfield has 28 bookies. In 2012, £102 million was bet and £3 million lost—that scourge just vacuums money out of our community. I actually do not agree with the motion; I think we should get rid of these iniquitous organisations.

Clive Efford: The motion addresses the concern expressed by my hon. Friend by calling for local councillors to make decisions about the economic activity that takes place in their town centres.

Andrew Bridgen: I admire the shadow Minister’s guile in bringing the debate before the House, but do not the facts speak for themselves? In 2000, there were no FOBTs in the UK, but by the time his party left office, there were 30,000 of them. Would not the most dangerous gamble facing the British public be if they were ever to consider voting Labour at the next general election?

Clive Efford: I will let the Conservatives in on something—the world changes. Since 2000, a £2 billion online gambling industry has emerged. The gambling industry is evolving. When we passed the 2005 Act, we made it clear that these FOBTs in betting shops were on probation and that we would keep them under review. We are saying that the time has come to deal with the situation, but this Government are refusing to do so.

Lucy Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservative party seems not to be taking any responsibility for things that are happening under its watch. Let me add some further evidence about deprivation—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady will be brief, but she must be heard.

Lucy Powell: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did think that the Conservatives were in government.
	In my constituency, which is one of the most deprived in the country, £190 million was spent on these machines last year alone. That is more than the council spent on services in my constituency, and in one ward alone, there are now 500 of these machines. What local councils need are more powers.

Clive Efford: All the examples we are hearing, including that one, show the problem of clustering.

Stewart Jackson: At the risk of paraphrasing Mrs Merton, what first attracted the multimillionaire Peter Coates, the chairman of bet365, to donate £400,000 to the Labour party, £100,000 of which was given in the 12 months after the passing of the Gambling Act 2005?

Clive Efford: Bet365 is an online gambling company and we are not dealing with that industry today. However, I will just say that Mr Coates’s company is one of the few that has stayed in the UK, that employs people in the UK and that pays taxes in the UK, which is more than can be said for Lord Ashcroft.

Joan Ruddock: When we introduced the legislation that resulted in these machines, we were not aware, and could not have been aware, of these unintended consequences. Now that we are aware, we call on the Government, who have the power to act, to do something about it.

Clive Efford: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Clive Efford: Let me make a little bit of progress before I give way again.
	The Government have consistently said, “Problem, what problem?” They might not be aware of the problem, but the people in our communities are and they want action. There have been numerous complaints. People talk about the crime and antisocial behaviour associated with betting shops, and about clustering and the detrimental impact on the character and diversity of our high streets. In her report on our high streets, which was commissioned by the Government in 2011, Mary Portas says:
	“The influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets.”
	The Government are aware of the concerns, yet they have consistently refused to give local people powers to stop new shops from opening in their communities. There is widespread support from local government for what we are calling for. In 2012, when the Local Government Association commissioned an opinion poll on people’s attitudes to planning and our high streets, it found that more than two thirds—68%—of local people were against existing rules allowing betting shops to take over banks and building societies without planning permission.

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Tote has its headquarters in my constituency. Is he aware that the people who feel most strongly about this are the staff who work in betting shops and see problem gambling? They are determined that there should be local powers to deal with the problem.

Clive Efford: Absolutely, and the people who represent staff in the betting industry have been vocal. There are concerns not just about the single staffing of premises and the safety of staff, but about training. To be fair, although the industry has come to the issue of training a bit late, it has started to introduce it for its staff, but it must create an environment in which it can be effective.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman help me by explaining something? How would stopping new shops prevent addictive gambling when we know that there are already so many shops out there and when in the last three years of the Labour Government, when it was known there was a problem, they did not think that anything could be done about it?

Clive Efford: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has been lured by briefings from his own side. This motion is about not problem gambling, but giving local authorities powers to deal with the proliferation of betting shops in our high streets—for planning and economic regeneration reasons, as well as because of concerns about the social impact of fixed odds betting terminals. We are not trying to suggest that passing the motion will solve problem gambling in relation to FOBTs, and the Prime Minister was mistaken today when he answered the Leader of the Opposition’s question on that matter.

Andrew Love: All the evidence that has been cited, especially by the shadow Minister and Labour Members, has put paid to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that we need evidence. We need action, and we need it now.

Clive Efford: I will come on to the evidence later in my speech, as what was said about that today really needs to be clarified. There is widespread opposition to the Government’s position on this matter. Back in 2012, when the Local Government Association published the conclusions of its opinion poll, Sir Merrick Cockell, the chairman of the LGA and former Conservative leader of Kensington and Chelsea, said:
	“This opinion poll shows local people want government to give councils the powers to tackle unsightly clusters of sex shops, bookies and takeaways that can blight so many of our high streets. People want action so the places they live, work and shop can be revitalised to reflect how they want them to look and feel.”
	The Government talk about localism, but they do not grant the powers even when they are asked to do so by their own colleagues.
	I assume that the Government have heard of a character called Boris Johnson. He is the Mayor of London and his office issued a statement on the issue of betting shops, saying:
	“They have grown in number with an increased supply of premises such as vacant banks and pubs that do not require planning permission to be used as a betting shop. Betting firms are attracted to busy high streets and town centres with a ready supply of such premises. This has resulted in clustering in less prosperous areas like Hackney, which has 64 betting shops in the borough, 8 in Mare Street alone, and Deptford”—
	in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock)—
	“with seven betting shops on one street.”
	The would-be leader of the Conservatives supports our view. His statement goes on to say:
	“The Mayor proposes that betting shop operators wishing to open up a new outlet should be required to apply for planning permission for the chosen premises, which would allow proper consideration to be given to each proposal for a betting shop and its effect on individual centres.”
	The Conservative chairman of the LGA and the Tory Mayor for London are both calling for the Government to act. In fact, it is hard to find anyone who supports the Government’s view. Local people want more powers, local government wants more powers and the two highest-ranking Tories in local government want the Government to act, too. Everyone seems to be in agreement except for the Government—well, except for certain parts of the Government.
	We have had another Liberal Democrat pledge. The Liberal Democrats have been at it again. One might have thought that they would have learned their lesson over university tuition fees, but once the flashbulbs start popping they cannot hold themselves back. They have been photographed saying “Ban the FOBTs” at the Liberal Democrat conference. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Minister for Schools, who is also a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) were all photographed backing anti-FOBT campaigners.
	The Liberal Democrats also passed a motion at their conference in September. What did it call for? It said that local councillors should
	“be empowered to decide whether or not to give approval to additional gambling venues in their community”
	and called for
	“Betting shops to be put in a separate planning use class”.
	The motion was not from some fringe group but from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip.

Richard Fuller: I am strongly opposed to FOBT machines in betting shops, but my opposition is governed by their impact on addiction and the complex interactions of addiction. The shadow Minister said that that was not part of his motion. Is he motivated at all by the addiction issue and, if he is, why did he not include it in his motion?

Clive Efford: I shall explain later my exact position on stakes and prizes, which has not changed for two years. I have consistently made my argument on stakes and prizes and I will give him a response when I come to that.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman talks about local government, but does he recognise that there are powers available through the use of article 4 directions, which both Barking and Southwark council have chosen to use? I appreciate that they might be a bit cumbersome, but powers are available now that councils can use.

Clive Efford: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will deal with article 4 directions.
	I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is time to stop posing for photos and posturing with fine words in the motions at their conference. Lib Dem MPs are clearly confused, so let me make it clear to them: today, they are deciding whether to empower local authorities to take control of their high streets, as they said they
	would at their conference, and to back their councillors, the members of their party and their Chief Whip, or to vote along with the gambling industry. They have made their claims, so they should stand up for them today.
	I turn to the words of the Minister, who commented on our choice of topic for the Opposition day debate. She claimed that my position contradicted the need for research. She said:
	“Just a few weeks ago Clive Efford”—
	that is me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is in the quote—
	“said that there was no evidence to support a change in the stake and prize levels for FOBTs, yet now he is trotting out a totally contradictory line, written for him by his political masters.”
	I know that the Minister has not been in the job for long, but she really ought to get a better grip of her brief, because there is nothing in the motion about stakes and prizes. She should know that early last year, in response to the triennial review of stakes and prizes, I called for changes to be made to the software of these machines, and all those changes are in the motion: longer periods between play; pop-ups to break play and to remind people how long they have been playing; requiring people to load the machines over the counter to force interaction with staff, to give staff the opportunity to interact with customers who may be gambling too much; and an end to single staffing. We have been consistent on these issues, but we have had nothing from the Government except some Lib Dems posing for photographs.

Michael Connarty: On the question of addictive gambling, my hon. Friend will know that I have raised the issue and with the help of the Daily Record exposed the fact that an active gambler in my constituency is banned from every betting shop within 10 miles, but can walk into any of those shops and play those fixed odds betting terminals. There is no one he talks to, no one vets him being there, and he gambles his wages away every week.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and technology should be used to protect people against problem gambling. That is something else that we have consistently raised.

Philip Davies: rose—

Clive Efford: How can I not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has so much knowledge of the gambling industry?

Philip Davies: I refer Members to my entry in Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I ask the shadow Minister about his position on this issue, because he has always supported research by the Responsible Gambling Trust, on which his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) serves, so I am sure that he has every confidence in it? He has always said that we should wait for research, so why does he support the research but is not prepared to wait for it? Is that not a ridiculous state of affairs?

Clive Efford: I repeat: today’s motion is not about stakes and prizes. It is about empowering local authorities, which have called for powers to deal with a wide range of issues that go beyond gambling. It is about economic
	regeneration; it is about economic vitality and diversity in town centres; it is about the concern about the effect that the clustering of betting shops has on the character of town centres. I will deal with the research, and I will come on to it very soon if hon. Members are patient.

Mike Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the motion allows local authorities to deal with the current situation in which there are far too many of these shops? Why is the motion not about the odds and the stakes, because that is the important issue?

Clive Efford: I will come on to the issue of stakes and prizes, but it is complex and it will take a great deal of time to explain. The motion calls for extra licensing powers and a change in the law. I accept that it would be difficult to introduce retrospective legislation to go back and take licences for those machines away from betting shops, but that is what is included in the motion. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is calling for, he can vote with us.
	Perhaps the most damning fact is the Government’s claim that councils have powers to stop the clustering of betting shops. Again in her comments on today’s debate, the shadow Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister—I am getting ahead of myself and am about 18 months too early—said:
	“Councils already have planning powers to tackle the proliferation of betting shops, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems and we have already acted to ensure the industry puts in place the types of player protection measures that Labour are now, at long last, calling for.”
	If that is the case, why do councils such as Newham have to go to court to try to stop more betting shops opening in their area? Why are so many local councils passing motions calling for more powers?
	Sir Robin Wales, responding to the Minister’s comments yesterday, said:
	“Current legislation leaves councils effectively powerless in their ability to tackle the clustering of betting outlets, which causes immeasurable harm to local communities and the high street. The only planning power available to councils (an Article 4 direction) is unwieldy and slow, and some betting shops don’t even require planning permission to open.”
	In 2004, Sir Merrick Cockell described article 4 directions as “unwieldy and bureaucratic”. The Local Government Association’s view of article 4 powers in the same year was equally negative:
	“Article 4 directions are costly and complex to use. Local authorities need to give notice of the restrictions coming into effect for a year to avoid being at risk of paying compensation. This is an obvious disincentive to the widespread use of Article 4 directions by local planning authorities, which undermines the effectiveness of this measure. Article 4 directions can also only be used across a whole use class—meaning they cannot even be used when a bank becomes a betting shop.”

Yasmin Qureshi: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the Government seem to object to this simple proposal, which would give local authorities more powers to decide whether to allow fixed odds betting terminals, which is something that local authorities want? It is not a controversial proposal, so I am surprised that the Government object to it.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives claim to be the party of localism, but they do nothing to encourage it.

Andrew Gwynne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Clive Efford: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, because many Members wish to speak. [Interruption.] I know that what I have to say is upsetting for Government Members, but I am afraid that they will have to hear it all.
	The Minister will no doubt say in her response that that is all Labour’s fault. In fact, she has already said just that:
	“Any concerns about fixed odds betting machines should be laid firmly at Labour’s door. In 2000, these machines did not exist—by the time of the last general election there were over 30,000.”
	FOBTs appeared in betting shops in 2001. In 2005 we limited them to four per shop. The Secretary of State at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), set out on Second Reading of the Gambling Act 2005 that the impact of the machines would be reviewed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) made it clear in 2009 that he would do just that. It is no good going back to 2005, because the world has moved on. Online gambling has grown from nothing into a £2 billion-a-year industry. The Government rejected our proposals to regulate that, so we will take no lessons from them.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I did call for FOBTs to be looked at again in 2009, but I also called for the industry to provide £5 million for the Responsible Gambling Trust, which looks at problem gambling. I hope that my hon. Friend admires the work being done by the trust, a charity that has five independent directors and five from the industry.

Clive Efford: Absolutely. There are eminent people in the Responsible Gambling Trust and I endorse what my hon. Friend says, but I do have something to say about the research.
	The concerns about FOBTs and the impact that betting shops have on our communities are not just about gambling. We will wait for proper research, but the Minister needs to understand that saying that we will wait for the research and then doing nothing to gather the information that we need to make informed decisions is just not good enough. After all, this Government scrapped the gambling prevalence survey. Let me quote again from her press release:
	“This Government is undertaking the biggest ever study into the effect of these machines and have made clear that we will not hesitate to take action if the evidence points in that direction. To act without evidence is inappropriate and extraordinarily cynical, even by Labour’s standards.”
	The Government are deluding themselves if they think that all the answers will come from the current study. In December, NatCen published a scoping report that states:
	“Across the category B estate in Great Britain, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the level and type of data collected.”
	That will seriously undermine the ability of the Responsible Gambling Trust to give us the information we need to make informed decisions when the research is completed
	next autumn. As the Minister well knows, the report will come out six months away from a general election, yet it will be inconclusive because the data are not robust enough to allow us to make informed decisions on FOBTs.

Damian Collins: Labour’s motion says that local authorities should have the power to license the number of FOBTs in existing betting shops. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that would allow a local authority to increase the number per shop on the high street today?

Clive Efford: No, because we would not allow the cap to extend beyond four per shop.

Damian Collins: That is not what it says in the motion.

Clive Efford: The motion says that local authorities would have to limit the number. We certainly would not lift the cap.

Mark Spencer: On the powers that the shadow Minister is seeking for local authorities, would he have those powers made retrospective so that local authorities can remove planning permission for existing betting shops?

Clive Efford: No. We are saying that we would place betting shops in their own category so that local councils would have to receive a planning application if someone wanted to open a new betting shop.
	Today’s vote is not about stakes and prizes; it is about putting power back in the hands of local communities and the councillors who represent them. Taking decisions in the face of opposition from the betting industry will be tough for local councillors, particularly when it comes to removing existing machines. I happen to believe passionately in local democracy; I spent 12 years as a locally elected councillor. I believe that well-informed local councillors are capable of making important decisions that benefit their communities, and that, too often, we here in Westminster have tied the hands of locally elected representatives. It is time to put local people before the vested interests of the powerful betting industry. We should put our trust in local democracy.

Eleanor Laing: I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Before I call the Minister to move the amendment, it might be helpful for the House to know that I am obliged to put a limit of four minutes on the length of speeches by Back Benchers because there is a very considerable demand for time to speak.

Helen Grant: I beg to move,
	That this House understands the public concerns around fixed odds betting terminals regulated by the Gambling Act 2005; notes that the Government has made clear that it considers the future of B2 regulation to be unresolved; welcomes the Government-backed research into the effect of fixed odds betting terminals on problem gambling; believes that any development in the Government’s policy on this matter should be evidence-led; calls upon the betting industry to provide the data required for a proper
	understanding of the impact of fixed odds betting terminals; and further notes that local authorities already have planning powers to tackle localised problems and target specific areas where the cumulative impact of betting shops or other specific types of premises might be problematic, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems.
	I find it remarkable that we are all here having this debate today. I remind the House that fixed-odds betting terminals did not exist 17 years ago, but then the Labour Government came to power, liberalisation began, and the Gambling Act 2005 came about. By the time of the last general election more than 30,000 fixed-odds betting terminals were in existence. Yet we find ourselves debating what this Government should do about them—discussing, again, how we should clear up Labour’s mess. That shows rank hypocrisy, total cynicism, and great opportunism.
	Yes, I do think these machines are concerning, but the silence of Labour Members on this topic before they ended up in opposition was quite deafening. They brought these machines into being, yet they have the audacity to sit here with a motion that seeks to blame this Government for any harm the machines might cause.

Angie Bray: I am very clear that the mess was created by the previous Government and I do not accept excuses about not knowing the likely consequences. However, we seem to have the solution in our hands in the form of the Localism Act 2011. Would it not be possible to empower our local communities, through their local elected representatives, to use, for example, saturation as a reason for saying that they really cannot sustain any more?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a very good and interesting point. As I progress, I will talk about the powers that local authorities have, including article 4 directions.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Lady accuses Labour of cynicism and opportunism, but cynicism and opportunism are the besetting sins of politicians. What my constituents want to know is: what are we as a House going to do about the betting shop scourge? One of the main roads in Hackney—Mare street—has eight betting shops full of these machines. Something must be done.

Helen Grant: I can see that the hon. Lady is concerned. If she bears with me, I will explain exactly what this Government are doing. This is the Government who have pushed for the research, who are doing the research and who are actually pushing the industry to provide the data we need to tackle problem gambling. Before I deal with the hon. Lady’s point, I want to tell the House what the Government are doing in a little more detail.
	This Government conducted a review last year of gaming machine stake and prize limits and looked very closely at the available evidence on fixed odds betting terminals. In particular, our review looked at evidence to support claims that these machines present an elevated risk of gambling-related harm. The review found that there are real concerns about fixed odds betting terminals
	and that some players have experienced considerable harm in using them. This Government therefore concluded that the future of these machines is unresolved, and we are undertaking urgent work to establish how they can be made safer, especially to those individuals who may be at greatest risk.

Alex Cunningham: I agree with the Minister that we have learned a lot from the introduction of these terminals. BBC Tees today highlighted the fact that a 17-year-old boy is already addicted to them. His is just one of many lives that are being damaged, yet the betting industry seems to think it is okay to have single-person staffing without any support in its betting shops. Does that not illustrate that it is putting profit before the interests of the people it calls its customers?

Helen Grant: No, I do not accept that. The Gambling Commission, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, has a requirement that under-age individuals are not allowed to gamble in licensed betting shops. Obviously, if the rules and conditions are breached, the operator is at risk of losing their license. I will develop that argument further and say a little more about staffing and security numbers as I progress.
	The motion raises a wide range of issues, but fails completely to focus on the evidence and activity that is well under way. In order to make appropriate decisions about fixed odds betting terminals, we need better to understand how they are used and the real impact on players. That is why the UK is conducting the largest ever programmes of research into gaming machine usage.
	The Opposition acknowledge—notwithstanding what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), said in his opening speech—that there is insufficient evidence to support a reduction in stakes and prizes. That is why we have focused our attention on improving the evidence base, so that we can determine whether a reduction in speed of play or a reduction in maximum stake will make the machines safer.

Mark Spencer: I was taught at an early age that the only thing anyone needs to know about the bookies is that there are four windows to pay in and one window that pays out. Surely education is one of the solutions to this problem. Will the Minister assure the House that she will do all she can to make sure that the gaming industry does what it can to educate its customers?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I had the big five betting operators in to see me in December, and I can reassure him that they are very mindful of the role of player education within player protection, and that they want to progress and do more about it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Grant: I will give way once I have made a little progress.
	It is crucial that interventions to make machines safer are based on an understanding of what measures are likely to be effective, rather than being simple, irrational knee-jerk reactions.

Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am carefully following what she is saying. Will she explain how—no matter how much care is exercised and what change might happen—areas of real multiple deprivation, such as my constituency, have so many betting shops with terminals, while wealthy areas do not? There is an absolute contrast, and our case is that the industry is targeting areas such as mine. Does she deny that, or not?

Helen Grant: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the location of betting premises and shops is to do with footfall, not deprivation. It is simply a matter of supply and demand.
	The Government are in no doubt that there is scope for the industry to improve its ability to identify people who might be at risk and to intervene early to minimise harm. That is why we have demanded that the industry introduce better player protection measures.

Stephen Timms: Does the Minister accept the point made so forcefully by Mary Portas that the prevalence of betting shops, particularly in deprived areas, has a very damaging effect on retail centres?

Helen Grant: We have of course looked carefully at the Portas review. We fed into the review, and the Government response made the point that article 4 directions exist and can be used by local authorities, in addition to the local authority licensing conditions that were recently used very successfully by Newham.

Andrew Percy: May I go back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock)? Is not the real reason that those betting premises are in her constituency the legislation for which she probably voted? Under the legislation, when a local councillor faces an application for a premises licence, the operator will already have received an operating licence from the Gambling Commission. With its three very strictly limited objectives, the legislation simply does not allow local councillors in her constituency to reject a premises licence application.

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point.

Stewart Jackson: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, but I think that the Labour party’s motion is cynical and opportunistic, given recent history. Does the Minister not think that the Government’s case would be much more compelling if they were prepared to observe the precautionary principle of looking at the £100-a-spin game before the demonstrable empirical evidence is published in the autumn, particularly in respect of the impact on vulnerable people?

Helen Grant: I assure my hon. Friend that we will look at everything: no stone will remain unturned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Minister has indicated that she is not giving way at this stage. Hon. Members must allow her to continue her speech and listen to her.

Helen Grant: I think that I have been pretty generous so far. I want to make a little progress and then I will take more interventions.
	On player protection, I have been consistently clear that the onus is on the betting industry immediately to develop and implement harm mitigation measures, and to make data available for independent research. I met the chief executives of the five largest UK bookmakers in December, and I challenged them to develop a plan by the end of January to link players with play in a way that allows us better to understand player behaviour and to assess the effectiveness of harm mitigation measures. That could include much more extensive use of card-based play on gaming machines to track player behaviour more systematically. I am not prepared, however, to delay taking action while we await research outcomes or industry plans to be developed. For that reason, I have challenged the industry to press ahead with its social responsibility code and to implement precautionary player protection measures at the earliest possible opportunity.

Yvonne Fovargue: Will the Minister confirm that the research will include player behaviour analysis, which has been opposed by the industry? Indeed, it did not allow the university of Cambridge to take that forward. Such analysis is crucial to an understanding of how the machine and the player interact.

Helen Grant: I can confirm that.
	The precautionary player protection measures include the implementation by March 2014 of suspensions in play when voluntary limits are reached, automatic alerts when customers have been playing for 30 minutes or when a certain amount of money has been spent, enhanced responsible gambling messaging, and a considerably improved and expanded system of voluntary self-exclusion, which will make it much easier for players to exclude themselves from multiple gambling premises.
	I do not accept the accusation that those measures are unsatisfactory because the code is not mandatory. I have made it clear that if the industry does not make sufficient progress in implementing those measures or if it cannot demonstrate to me that they have been effective, the Government may act on a precautionary basis anyway. Additionally, the implementation of those measures does not preclude further action at any point, should it become necessary.

Brian H Donohoe: A major bookmaker in my constituency has just retired, so he is more honest than most. He tells me that this kind of gambling is like cocaine—it is totally and absolutely addictive. There are examples of that. A man wins £13,000 in the morning, but he is allowed to play until 8 o’clock in the evening and he loses every penny that he has won. That is how addictive it is. This problem is polluting our high streets. Shops are disappearing and in their place, we are getting bookmakers. This is a ridiculous situation and a decision is needed sooner rather than later.

Helen Grant: That is why there is no green light for fixed odds betting terminals. Their future is absolutely unresolved, pending the research that we have started.
	The Responsible Gambling Trust is carrying out research to better understand how people behave when playing on gaming machines and what helps people to play responsibly. It is the largest piece of academic research that has ever been undertaken on the issue. It aims to understand patterns of gaming behaviour and to identify when there is robust evidence that consumers may be experiencing problems.

Philip Davies: Will the Minister confirm that the bookmakers have provided all the information that she has asked for? If that is not the case, will she set out what information she would like from the bookmakers that they have not provided her with?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need the information from the bookmakers. That is one reason why I met the big five bookmakers in December. They have indicated that they will provide the data we need. To make sure that they do provide the data, a further meeting has been set up with them for 30 January.
	I met the Responsible Gambling Trust in December and pressed it to make progress with the research programme. I emphasised to it the importance of obtaining tangible research outcomes by the autumn of 2014. I am clear that the industry must rapidly share data to allow the research aims to be met within the required timetable.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the work of the Responsible Gambling Trust, which is made up of five independent members and five members from the industry. Will she condemn the attacks that have been made on the Responsible Gambling Trust by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, which is rubbishing any work that comes from the trust?

Helen Grant: I will not get involved in such arguments, but I will say that the Responsible Gambling Trust does good work and is a reputable organisation. I look forward to receiving this important piece of work from it later this year.

Therese Coffey: In December, the public health survey looked at this issue for the first time. It stated:
	“Among both men and women, there was no difference in gambling prevalence by area deprivation, once age was accounted for.”
	That was true except among people in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation, who were more likely to participate in bingo. There is further analysis relating to FOBTs and quintile four. However, the most recent data that we have show that, in essence, there is no difference by area.

Helen Grant: That is an interesting and important point, and I believe that that piece of work also indicated that levels of problem gambling had fallen from just below 1% to just below 0.5%. Notwithstanding the drop in the number of problem gamblers, the Government are concerned about any level of problem gambling and will, of course, urge the industry—as we are doing—to make real and proper progress on that matter.

Hugh Bayley: The Minister is arguing that there is a serious problem, and she keeps wagging her finger at Labour Members and saying it is our fault. [Interruption.] Listen for a moment. She seems to acknowledge that there is a serious problem, so will her Government legislate to address the problem before the next general election?

Helen Grant: We believe in doing things properly. We are waiting for the research and have put pressure on the industry to produce the data. Reports will be coming out imminently, and precautionary protections will be put in place by the industry at the end of March. We will do whatever is needed to ensure that people are protected. Although planning is a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, my officials are in regular discussion with colleagues from that Department about betting shop clustering.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Grant: No, I will not; I am going to make some progress and I think I have been generous. Changes to the national planning system are not the answer to local problems. Local authorities already have a range of powers available regarding betting shops, and a local planning authority can consult and make an article 4 direction that removes permitted development rights, where it considers that necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of an area. The London boroughs of Southwark and of Barking and Dagenham have brought forward article 4 directions, thus requiring a planning application for any new betting shops. That will enable them to consider the application against their local plan. The betting shop must also comply with its licensing conditions, and where those are breached, the local licensing authority has power to intervene, including removing the licence to operate.
	As we have heard, the motion before us calls for local communities to ban gaming machines in their areas. The Government agree that responsibility for managing high streets should rest with local areas, but the truth is that local authorities already have powers to control gambling premises in their areas. Local authorities have power to reject an application for a gambling premises licence, or to grant one with additional conditions should that be necessary. They have power to review licences after they have been granted, and to impose licence conditions after review. Many local authorities have already used those powers to good effect. For example, in November 2013, the London borough of Newham—which has been mentioned this afternoon—imposed conditions on a betting shop because of its concerns about crime, disorder and under-age gambling. The conditions stipulate that a minimum of two members of staff must be on duty throughout the day. Additionally, the betting shop must carry out an undercover, under-age test purchase to ensure that minors are not gambling, and it must send the results to the council and the police.
	The Government believe it is right for the industry, in conjunction with local authorities, to agree on the appropriate level of staffing in betting shops, depending on the circumstances of the local area. Local authorities already have powers to ensure a minimum level of staffing where appropriate. The Government urge local
	authorities to fully utilise powers at their disposal to limit the number of betting shops in line with local demand, and to apply appropriate licensing conditions where they have cause to tackle issues of problem gambling in local communities. Adopting the motion would lead to a patchwork of regulation right across the country where it is okay for gaming machines to be located in some areas but not in others. I do not believe that that is the right way forward. The industry must instead introduce better targeted and more effective player protection for users of gaming machines in all locations.
	Player protection is at the heart of the Government’s approach to fixed odds betting terminals. I have made it clear to the industry that it must urgently develop targeted player protection measures for those players who are at greatest risk. I do not believe that the motion can achieve such an outcome. However, I do not rule out any action that may be necessary to make machines safer. I am clear that if the betting industry fails to deliver on its commitment to implement enhanced player protection measures by March 2014, does not share data for independent research, and if the balance of the evidence suggests precautionary action on stakes and prizes or other measures are required, the Government will not hesitate to act.

Stephen Timms: If one crosses Barking road from East Ham town hall to go into East Ham High street north, there is a Paddy Power on the corner at 387 Barking road, a Betfred just around the corner at No. 6, and two more Paddy Powers at 20 High street north and directly opposite at No. 11. At No. 56 is a Jenningsbet and, set back in Clements road directly opposite No. 45, there is a Coral. In the short walk along the high street to East Ham station, there are two more Betfreds, another Paddy Power, a Ladbrokes and a William Hill, which was the subject of the licensing committee meeting in November to which the Minister referred. On the other side of the station, there are two more Paddy Powers and a Ladbrokes.
	I think that represents a concentration. It is certainly related to the economic character of the area and not simply a question of footfall. All those shops open at 7.30 or 8 in the morning. They stay open until 10 o’clock at night seven days a week, and one of them has just asked for permission to stay open till 11pm. I would be very grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the measures she is discussing with the industry will be taken up by organisations such as Paddy Power and Betfred, which account for such a large number of the recently opened shops in our area.

Andrew Gwynne: It seemed that the Minister was not aware that the Local Government Association said that article 4 directives were not sufficient to prevent the proliferation of betting shops on the high street. Is that not precisely why we need to reclassify betting shops out of the A2 classification so that situations such as the one on my right hon. Friend’s high street are not able to continue?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly the view of Conservative local authorities and, as we have heard, of the Mayor of London. I think it would also be the view across the House, were it to be tested.
	To gauge public opinion when there was an application for two more Paddy Power branches last year, I held a drop-in surgery at a local community centre in my constituency. One person who came in was a former Paddy Power manager. He said that he had seen a large number of families destroyed and businesses ruined, as well as students who gambled away their student loans. He told me that by spending a day in a Paddy Power shop, one would meet half a dozen people whose lives had been destroyed by their addiction.
	Last year, when Newham council refused a licence for two new Paddy Power branches, the organisation appealed. Impressed by the phalanx of sharp lawyers—and, I have to say, sold-out former police officers—who appeared, the judge duly nodded the appeal through. The truth is that existing planning and licensing powers are hopelessly inadequate, as my hon. Friend said, and need to be strengthened in the way laid out in the motion. The claim in the Government’s amendment that local authorities already have enough powers is simply not the case.

Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Bellshill’s small main street has seven of these premises. The local council, North Lanarkshire, supported by Bellshill community council, turned one application down, only for the Scottish Government to use their powers to overrule it, so how can it be said that local authorities have these powers?

Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Government planning inspectors in England routinely overturn refusals, so the powers are inadequate. We have 87 of these shops in my borough. I think that there were nine new ones in 2011 and a similar number in 2012, which shows the scale of the problem. To underline the point, in the Paddy Power case in Newham, the judge awarded costs against the council to punish it and warn others against thinking of challenging this growth. The council was using the powers mentioned in the Government’s amendment, so those powers are clearly inadequate.
	I was grateful to the Minister for acknowledging my point about Mary Portas’s review. I think she said that she agreed with Mary Portas, so why are the Government not going to act? One of the people who came to my constituency drop-in was the owner of commercial properties on East Ham high street. Frankly, he has a guilty conscience about letting his properties to betting shops, but he made the point that betting chains paid more than anyone else to occupy the units. They are very attractive tenants and, by extracting huge sums from people who cannot afford it, they are making money hand over fist. The law needs to change urgently to deal with the problem.
	As the Minister said, there has recently been modest success in East Ham. The William Hill opposite East Ham station has been a magnet for drunken antisocial behaviour for a long time. After it allowed a 15-year-old to use its machines, an application was made to revoke its licence. There was the usual phalanx of lawyers and former police officers, but the upshot was that the council committee required the company to make some improvements. Among other things—I am pleased that this point has been picked up in the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)—the
	bookmaker was required to have at least two members of staff present whenever it was open, instead of the usual one. As far as I can tell, however, there is only ever one member of staff in the other betting shops on the high street. I understand that this is the first time such a condition has been applied and accepted by a bookmaker, and I hope that our motion suggests that that will be a precedent for elsewhere.

Mark Tami: Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that many of these employees do not have much training in dealing with problem gamblers? Despite what the industry says, many staff are given a job and then start work straightaway.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is right. In any case, these members of staff are one person on their own in one of these shops, many of which are quite big. They are sitting behind a glass screen, so what are they supposed to do if there is someone with a problem in the shop? There are often fights outside. Interestingly, Community, on behalf of its members working in betting shops, has supported our very good motion, and I hope that the House will agree to it.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the debate as an opportunity to bring some light to the subject, rather than the large amount of smoke that has obscured it so far, but that might be a statement of hope, rather than experience.
	It is important to bring some perspective to the debate. Gambling is a legitimate activity that brings considerable pleasure to millions of people in this country, that generates a lot of economic activity and that provides employment and tax revenue for the Government. Betting shops are not a blight on the high street; they are regulated and controlled environments that provide employment and, in some cases, a social benefit.

Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman says that gambling raises revenue for the Government, but in actual fact the Government receive about £3 billion a year in revenue and the profit on fixed odds betting terminals is about £1.5 billion. It costs the state £3.6 billion to deal with problem gamblers, so does not that suggest that this is bad economics?

John Whittingdale: I shall come on to problem gambling, but it is a myth to suggest that that is entirely a result of FOBTs. There is a difficulty due to problem gambling, and a small number of people suffer from addiction—of course they need some protection. It has always been a principle that the harder forms of gambling are permitted in more controlled environments. To that extent, it was something of an anomaly that the previous Government allowed B2 machines on the high street while there were restrictions on those machines in adult gaming centres and casinos. It was ironic, too, that the previous Government wanted to introduce category A gaming machines, for which there were no limits on stakes or prizes, in super-casinos. Perhaps those anomalies should have been addressed. That was why, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee looked at the problem, we recommended allowing up to 20 B2 machines in casinos and some B2 machines in adult gaming centres.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is all very well restricting stakes and prizes in betting shops, there is nothing to stop the people involved from going back home where they can play exactly the same games on the internet with unlimited stakes and unlimited prizes?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I was going to come on to that point.
	The latest statistics in the English health survey show that something like 0.5% of the population might be suffering from problem gambling, which represents a drop from the previous figure in the gambling prevalence study.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: I am sorry, but I have very little time, so I shall have to continue.
	Although that figure might have fallen and although only a small number of people are involved, I accept of course that those people still need protection, which was why the Select Committee looked at various technologies that might help to address the problem. We looked at self-exclusion, taking periods of rest between playing machines and mandatory pre-commitment. We should consider such measures, but before taking any action, it is important that we act on the evidence. That was why we recommended that more research should be conducted so that we could establish whether B2 machines presented any greater risk of attracting problem gamblers than other types of machine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed out, the strongest growth in gambling is taking place online, but there are far fewer controls online for people who have a problem. It is much more difficult to verify someone’s age online and for someone to self-exclude.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: I am sorry, but there are strict time limits on speeches, so I want to press on. I have explained why I believe that we need much more research.
	The issue of clustering has been raised, too, and it was also recognised by the Select Committee. We recommended, although this was widely misinterpreted, that there should be some flexibility for local authorities so that if it could be shown that a large number of betting shops had opened to get around the limit of four machines in a shop, one solution might be to allow local authorities to permit more machines in individual betting shops precisely to stop more shops from opening. We suggested that such flexibility should be applied in an upward rather than a downward direction.
	I support localism, but the problem with the Opposition’s motion is that, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) confirmed, the proposal would not be retrospective. It would apply only to new shops, so he would not seek to close existing betting shops on the high street.

Clive Efford: rose—

John Whittingdale: I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to clarify his position.

Clive Efford: The licensing powers relating to the machines could be retrospective. The number of machines per shop could be reduced.

John Whittingdale: But the hon. Gentleman is not proposing to revoke the existing permissions for shops that are currently on the high street, so what he suggests would not be likely to make any great difference. It would act as an anti-competitive measure that would benefit the people currently operating on the high street and prevent new entrants from coming into the market. Generally, that would be detrimental to consumers.
	The Select Committee’s overall conclusion was that before we take action in this area, we need much more research. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is a member of the Responsible Gambling Trust, pointed out that a thorough study is under way, with a report due in the near future. The Opposition’s motion pre-empts the work that the trust is doing and draws conclusions before we have even seen the results of its research. That is completely the wrong way round, and it is for that reason, in line with what the Select Committee recommended, that I shall support the Government’s amendment and not the Opposition’s motion.

Tom Watson: Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a happy new year to you.
	I was extremely heartened to hear the Prime Minister express concern about the prevalence of fixed odds betting terminals from the Dispatch Box for the second time earlier today, because the issue is of concern to Members on both sides of the House. This is a new technology linked to high-stake gambling. It seems to me that there is a clear remedy, namely to banish the machines from the high street, or else to reduce the stakes significantly from £100 to £2, which would in effect turn them into the old-style arcade fruit machines that we probably all remember from childhood. However, that approach has not yet found favour, and I think that the next best solution is offered by the Opposition’s motion.
	I have time to focus on only one issue, namely how we commission, fund and respond to research in the context of public policy. I want to caution the Minister: I think it is a little foolhardy to set so much store by the findings of a report that is the outcome of a complex set of arrangements that make it hard for allegations of too much influence from vested interests to be overcome.
	The problem for the Government and the House is this. We are awaiting the findings of a study that is intended to establish what harm is being caused to individual players. Those findings are due to be published later this year by the Responsible Gambling Trust, which is funded by a voluntary levy on the gambling industry and chaired by a former industry executive. The gambling industry should not be seen to have influence over a body that is, in effect, conducting research on itself.
	In 2008, the Gambling Commission recommended a tripartite structure for research, education and treatment. The commission argued that if those programmes were to be funded voluntarily, it was essential for strategy,
	fundraising and commissioning to be run by separate bodies so that a conflict of interest could be avoided. Otherwise the industry, as the sole funder, might have influence over what research was commissioned.

Gerry Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend says, at that time it was difficult to bring together various bodies to fund research, education and treatment for problem gamblers. The NHS does not fund such programmes, and the Responsible Gambling Trust provided the best possible deal at the time. What I find regrettable is that the Campaign for Fairer Gambling should attack the integrity of that individual body of research on gambling, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not do the same now.

Tom Watson: I am going to attack the arrangements, although I am not decrying my hon. Friend. One can choose whether to work within the system to improve things or to try to influence them from outside, and we have taken a different path in that regard, but I am sure that our policy goals are the same.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that much of the anecdotal and experiential evidence is very clear, and that it is really a question of whether the Government are prepared to take on vested interests? Time and again, when that question is put to them, their answer is no, they are not.

Tom Watson: I do think that there is a timidity when it comes to the big gambling lobby. In my view, it is hard not to conclude that the complex relationships that I have described constitute an attempt to hide the influence of the industry on public policy. Whatever the outcome of today’s debate and whatever action we take on FOBTs in the future, the current arrangements for the commissioning of research require decisive modernisation.
	The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board was set up to recommend strategic objectives to the commissioning body, which at the time was the Responsible Gambling Fund. A body called the Gambling Research Education and Treatment Foundation, popularly known as GREaT, took over fundraising. It was headed by Neil Goulden, who was the chief executive officer of Coral and is now the chair of the Association of British Bookmakers. Subsequently, trustees from the Responsible Gambling Fund resigned as they felt the fundraising body had too much influence over what research was to be commissioned. So that is a concern, and I think it is one we should all address.

Gerry Sutcliffe: rose—

Tom Watson: I am sorry, but I cannot take another intervention as I am running out of time.
	There is also a revolving-door policy with some of the regulators. There is a guy called Andrew Lyman who now works for William Hill and is a rather truculent tweeter. He used to work for the commission when it stressed the importance of separating fundraising from commissioning and research, and now he works for William Hill lobbying against that. So I think there is an inherent conflict of interest in the system that we have put in place and I hope that when the Minister responds to this discussion, she will be able to answer this question: how can the House have confidence in a report when we cannot be confident that it is truly independent?

Philip Davies: I once again refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	In the limited time available I want to just dispel some myths, but I shall start by saying it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), my former sparring partner on the Select Committee. However, I should point out that at the time the Committee carried out its report into gambling, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee but I do not think he turned up to any of the sessions. Perhaps if he was so concerned about this issue he might have turned up and listened to some of the evidence because he might have learned something as a result.

Tom Watson: I apologise for not turning up. There was another vested interest that I had a personal interest in at the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but when that debate was going on I thought to myself that not even the hon. Gentleman would be dumb enough to ask for more FOBTs in bookies rather than fewer. I was wrong.

Philip Davies: If the hon. Gentleman had actually turned up, he would have known the report was unanimously supported by all members including members of the Labour party.
	The first myth I want to dispel is that there has been an explosion in the number of betting offices and machines. The number of betting offices has actually declined from a peak of 14,750 in the mid-1970s to around 8,700 today and that figure has been virtually the same for the last 10 years. FOBTs—B2 machines—are also in decline: according to the Gambling Commission 4% of adults played them in 2010 and the figure dropped to 3.4% in 2011-12 and, in 2013, all bookmakers reported a decline in the gross win from FOBTs.
	Even in areas considered to have huge numbers of bookmakers—for example Hackney—they make up about 2.7% of all retail units. Let us take Greenwich as an example of what has happened. The number of bookmakers has gone up in Greenwich by 8% at the same time as the population in Greenwich has increased by 13%. Of course bookmakers are often in densely populated areas and some of them happen to be poorer areas, too, but the relevant fact is that they are in densely populated areas not poorer areas.

Stephen Timms: There are 12 bookmakers in the short stretch of East Ham high street between East Ham town hall and East Ham station. There has never been anything like such a large number in that small area before. Something dramatic has changed and it needs to be fixed.

Philip Davies: The right hon. Gentleman says that, but many of his constituents work in them, of course, and many of his constituents enjoy going into them. If they did not enjoy going into them, they would not be open.
	It is true that more bookmakers have moved on to the high street in recent years, but their overall number has not gone up; instead they have moved from the side
	streets owing to lower rents because of the recession largely caused by the Labour party, and they will probably move back on to the side streets when the economy recovers and rents on the high street go back up.
	Anyway, where are the legions of retailers wanting to open up on the high street in place of bookmakers? It is not a decision between having Next on the high street or William Hill or having M&S on the high street or Paddy Power. It is a choice between having Ladbrokes on the high street or a boarded-up shop.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I cannot give way again as I have taken the two interventions allowed.
	People ask for a demand test and there is a demand test: it is called a customer demand test, which is the ultimate demand test.
	The second myth is that bookmakers target poorer areas. There are two bookmakers per square mile in the most deprived areas. That compares with nine pubs and 11 takeaways. If the Opposition are saying that bookmakers are targeting the poorest people in society, what do they have to say about pubs and takeaways targeting those people? Do we hear anything about that? We do not, because this is not about the poorest in society being targeted; it is about people who are anti-gambling and anti-bookmaker. Bookmakers are not targeting poorer areas. This is about middle-class people being patronising towards working-class people by telling them that they know best how they should spend their money.
	The third myth is that the machines are used by the poorest people. Again, that is untrue. The health survey published in recent months shows that gambling prevalence was highest in the top quintiles of household income, with 6% of people in the highest income quintile playing FOBTs, compared with 4% in the lowest quintile. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East said that he did not want surveys to be linked to the gambling industry, but this is the health survey, which has nothing to do with the gambling industry. That survey makes it clear that richer people are much more likely than poorer people to play FOBTs.
	Only two gambling activities in that health survey were engaged in more by poorer people than by richer people. They were scratch cards and bingo. Poorer people spend more on scratch cards and bingo than do the richest people. What are the Opposition saying about scratch cards and bingo? Nothing, because they do not think that it would be popular to say anything about them. This is just a case of crocodile tears.

Chris Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very good man on these issues, but I am afraid that time does not allow me to do so.
	The fourth myth is that the amount of problem gambling is going up. The health survey shows that, according to the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, 0.8% of men and 0.2% of women were identified as problem gamblers in 2012. That is down from 0.9% in the previous prevalence study. So problem gambling is going down, not up. If B2s and
	FOBTs were the cause of such problem gambling, it would presumably have gone through the roof in recent years, but it has actually gone down.
	We often hear FOBTs being described as the “crack cocaine of gambling”, but by whom? No one impartial describes them in that way. The first recorded instance is Donald Trump describing video keno games in New Jersey as the “crack cocaine of gambling”, because he feared that they would keep people out of his casinos. This is a ridiculous debate on a ridiculous premise, and I cannot possibly support the Opposition motion today.

Mark Hendrick: Many of us on both sides of the House who represent poor and working-class constituents can see the effect that these machines are having on lives and families, and their impact on our inner towns and cities, especially where a proliferation of betting shops provides an opportunity to play the machines, or where category B1 and B2 machines are to be found in clubs. Any Labour Members who attend trade union and labour clubs, and any Government Members who attend political and sports clubs, will regularly see people pouring hundreds of pounds into these machines, while often getting very little back.

Steve Rotheram: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just said, it cannot be a coincidence that bookies in the top 50 unemployment black spots profited from FOBTs to the tune of £173 million last year, while those in the 50 lowest unemployment areas made a profit of only £44 million? Does not that illustrate my hon. Friend’s point?

Mark Hendrick: It does, and I commend my hon. Friend for his comment. These machines disproportionately affect those who live in poorer, working-class areas.
	The problem of the B1 and B2 machines is highly pervasive. If someone in a club is drinking too much and clearly has an addiction or a drinking problem, they are often asked to leave. If they become a problem customer, they are shown the door. However, problem gamblers pouring money into machines are not warned that their gambling is excessive. In fact, they are encouraged by the fact that the machines are placed next to the bar, so that any change put across the bar is put into the machine as quickly as possible. Additionally, a person may be drinking at the bar, and a machine next to the bar offers a comfortable place to park a drink while using the machine. The companies that provide gaming machines to clubs, pubs and bookmakers use all sorts of techniques to maximise profits from the machines.
	The Gambling Commission does not license pubs, clubs, working men’s clubs or family entertainment centres operating under a local authority permit. The Government claim that the commission does not collect data for those businesses. That is their explanation for not having sufficient data to deal with an obvious problem. The fact that data on those businesses is not collected does not necessarily mean that the Government cannot publish a report or carry out an inquiry to get such information. If society has a problem with gambling, it is the Government’s job to get to the bottom of it, not
	just to pass enabling legislation to make limits even higher. FOBTs allow almost unlimited winnings, as well as huge losses. Given the technology that the multibillion-pound gambling industry is using in this day and age, it beggars belief that it cannot collate the information that will allow the Government to make informed decisions about what the limits should be, and about how machines should operate, where they should operate and at what times of the day. If anything, I believe that there is a deliberate attempt by the industry to cover up what is happening. The impact assessment does not give us a true overall picture of the situation.
	Communities are becoming poorer. We have heard from the Government about an increase in employment, but there has been a large increase in part-time employment, and low pay is the problem it always was. Poor people are being drawn in initially to try to make money for essentials, rather than just coming along for amusement, and are then getting drawn into habitual gambling, which we are all seeing on our high streets. People know what is happening with high-stake, fixed-odds machines. The Government know what is happening, but they have deliberately chosen not to take action and to kick this into the long grass. They are in fact helping the industry by increasing the limits in the way they have. We know what is happening with Wonga and payday loans. We know what austerity is doing to poor and unemployed people, and people on low incomes. People are trying to get money from any source, and gambling seems like a quick fix, and it is much more prevalent than it used to be. I have seen in my own town of Preston a huge increase in the number of betting shops and bookies. Payday loan businesses are taking over premises that were once shops, and reputable companies and businesses as well.

Iain McKenzie: My hon. Friend has talked about the accumulation of data, and the Government say that they wish to look at the data before they make any judgment. He identified the fact that the data we are seeing every day with our own eyes is telling us the truth, which is that these things are increasing day upon day on our high streets.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend is right, and it does not take a genius to see what is going on; we are all seeing it every day on our own streets with our own eyes. Poor and unemployed people, who have been hit by austerity measures, are being drawn to the clubs and bookies to use these machines on a scale that has never been seen before. The current limit of four FOBTs should remain the limit, and local authorities should be given the powers outlined in our motion, which I ask hon. Members to support.

Therese Coffey: It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate. I served on the Select Committee when it investigated this issue between 2011 and 2012. It was a useful inquiry to undertake several years after the Gambling Act 2005, because although, as has been said, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, one role of Select Committees and of legislators is to step back and ensure that we are looking at the real data, as opposed to other people’s interpretations of them.
	Let us have a bit of a history lesson. FOBTs appeared in high street bookmakers’ shops in the early 2000s,
	and, after a code of conduct was agreed with the industry restrictions were put in place: the game type was restricted to only roulette; a cap was put in place on the stakes and prices; a minimum time interval between bets was introduced; and a limit was put in place on the number of machines per shop. That was a useful compromise, but the whole point of reviewing legislation is to see whether there have been any unintended consequences. One of the most obvious unintended consequences has been mentioned by many hon. Members: as the machines are popular and there is a demand for them, what we have been seeing in high streets in different parts of the country is that more and more betting shops are appearing. That may be partly due to the fact that premises are readily available. There have been mergers of various banks and building societies, which are in the same planning class as betting shops. Ultimately, those shops would not open if people did not want to use them.

Graham Jones: Is the hon. Lady as disappointed as I am that the Government have not mentioned the survey that 2CV did in Newham, which is a reputable data gathering company? She talked about how folk go into these premises and are addicted to these machines. The survey, which questioned 500 customers as they left betting premises, revealed that 62% admitted to spending every last penny in their pockets and leaving the shop only when all their money had been spent.

Therese Coffey: I think I have seen that survey. It was commissioned by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. I do not deny that that was the outcome. Professor Orford, who is known to be anti-gambling, gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that we are the most studied country in the world, with three public prevalence surveys since 2000 and even more public health research. Despite that, our Committee was not able to substantiate the fact that gambling addiction is driven by fixed odds betting terminals.

Philip Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 160 illegal machines were confiscated in the south-east last year? Does she agree that if FOBTs were banned, as the Opposition want, it would drive the gambling underground and even more of these machines would be played illegally?

Therese Coffey: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recognise that if we displace an activity in a controlled environment there is the risk of creating an uncontrolled environment. We should also consider some of the briefing we have been given. The Gambling Commission says we cannot use the gambling prevalence survey results specifically to identify the causation of problem gambling. Some of the research, which alluded to secondary data research, said:
	“Virtual gaming machines had the strongest association with gambling-related problems, but few people endorsed that they had played these games during the past 12 months. These findings suggest that popular perceptions of risk associated with specific types of gambling for the development of gambling-related problems might misrepresent actual risk…The range of gambling involvement frequently is a better predictor of disordered gambling status than type of gambling. This finding is important because it
	represents a deviation from the tendency to focus on specific games, such as fruit/slot machines as central to gambling-related problems.”
	We should be looking instead at global behaviour characteristics. That is the research that was referred to by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, but it does not support its own particular view.
	There are different surveys on whether poor people are being targeted, including from Public Health England. Table 3.9 of the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010 specifically sets out the participation in gambling activities in the past year in relation to FOBTs by the index of multiple deprivation and shows that there is no particular difference between the classes. Scotland has the highest prevalence of FOBT use in the country as a whole.
	I do not deny that there are individual cases. We know that there are problem gamblers—the latest estimate suggests between 300,000 and 400,000, and those individual cases will be absolute tragedies. We may have heard them on the radio or met them in our surgeries. They may have bet the family silver. Families are torn apart by the problem, but this is no different from what happens when people are driven to similar distraction by other addictions, such as to alcohol or drugs.
	I respect the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but he says that all he is talking about is a few more powers. The basis of our English law is that we can do what we want unless the Government and the law intervene to restrict us, and we see that with crime, planning and so on. We must be careful when we stop legitimate gambling on the basis of anecdotal research. It is a bit like the many campaigns that we receive. We tend to hear from less than 1% of our constituents, and we cannot assume that everybody thinks the same.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Therese Coffey: I am sorry but I only have 45 seconds left.
	We need to think carefully about any changes that we propose. I supported the Select Committee’s report and we need to take a measured approach. We need to continue to work to try to tackle the problems of problem gamblers, but that does not mean that we should throw away the freedoms people rightly enjoy to gamble, whether that is on our high streets or elsewhere.
	I cannot support the Opposition motion. The Government’s amendment provides a reasoned approach to ensuring that we continue to tackle the problem and I will therefore support the Government.

Louise Ellman: The key issue at the heart of the debate is localism—the ability of local authorities to act in the interests of the people they represent. I was most surprised when the Minister referred to localism as an unacceptable patchwork, as that is an unacceptable approach to take when considering local authorities and their responsibilities.
	The debate is not about gambling in general but about specific and growing concerns about fixed odd betting terminals in betting shops. Every 20 seconds, £100 can be gambled, often with disastrous results for individuals. Research has shown that the people using those facilities particularly include young unemployed men.

John Whittingdale: Has the hon. Lady ever played a fixed odds betting terminal? They have one of the highest rates of return of any gambling machine and it is virtually impossible to lose hundreds of pounds as the majority of the money one puts in comes back out again.

Louise Ellman: I am concerned about the negative aspects of the activity, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to some of the information contained in the report of Landman Economics, which I have quoted.
	There is certainly a link between the growth of such facilities and areas of deprivation. In Liverpool, Riverside, which I represent, there are now 189 such terminals—one of the highest levels in the country—and it is a very deprived area. That deprivation has been recognised by and has caused deep concern to the local authority, Liverpool city council, which is why it raised the issue last November and called for increased powers to enable it to deal with this specific concern.
	It is often local authorities that recognise the cumulative effects of such facilities, and the impact on local communities and individuals. The city council has cited in its debates many cases of people who have turned to loan sharks in desperation, having got into debt because of these facilities, and the problems that they have experienced. Indeed, the Landman Economics report provides evidence of the economic impact on local communities. In fact, there is information that suggests that an increase in spending of £1 billion on such terminals rather than other services can lose the equivalent of 13,000 UK jobs. There is concern about the development of such facilities, about the fact that they are uncontrolled in areas of deprivation, and about the impact on individuals and local communities, and it is important that local authorities are given the necessary powers to deal with the issue.
	Government Members seem to have said a number of different things about local authority powers. Some have suggested that local government has sufficient powers, others have said that such powers are perhaps difficult to find and others have cited examples of where such powers have been found to be failing or simply do not exist. The key point is that local authorities should be able to deal with the issues they consider to be important to their areas. That does not mean that they should be forced to take a particular course of action, but they should be enabled to do so when they feel that it is necessary.
	The proposal is not about gambling in general and certainly would not deal with the significant growth of online gambling. This is about another very specific issue, as it is extremely important that local government is given the powers it requests to react to problems.

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is making powerful points about the contradictions in the points made by Government Members about localism and nationalism and about addiction. In the 2CV survey of 500 punters in Newham, 87% said that these machines were very addictive and, as I said earlier, 62% said that they would put every last penny into the machines before they left the shops. Is that not shocking?

Louise Ellman: My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I urge Government Members to recognise that the heart of the motion is about empowering local
	authorities to take the action they consider necessary in the interests of the people they represent. It does not preclude other decisions being made when further research has been carried out, and I urge the Government to support the motion.

Stewart Jackson: Just before Christmas, I was one of only four Government Members to vote against the Government in a deferred Division on this issue. Unfortunately, although I have great sympathy with many of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I cannot support the Labour motion. I will not rehearse the reasons for that, but the motion is cynical, opportunistic and, not least, confused. The Leader of the Opposition launched a campaign in the summer about stakes and problem gambling. It was about the generic issue—it was not just about use class orders and planning, which is what the hon. Member for Eltham is telling the House today. I have been partly reassured by the Minister’s approach.

David Burrowes: I have been similarly reassured by the Minister’s response. My hon. Friend shares my concern—I am sure he will discuss clustering in Peterborough, which is similar to the clustering of betting shops in Green Lanes in my constituency—that there should be greater local powers. My local area wants to set up a neighbourhood plan that involves the high street. Does he think that in the review and the response the promise to leave no stone unturned should include greater powers in relation to planning and licensing?

Stewart Jackson: Absolutely. That is an integral part of any remedial powers that the Government take to deal with the serious and legitimate concerns of many of my constituents. There are 22 betting shops in central Peterborough, with 81 FOBTs generating about £3.2 million. I am disappointed, because this could have been a genuine cross-party debate on information and research provided by bodies such as the Methodist Church, which has not always supported my party, and the Salvation Army. I declare an interest as a member of the good neighbours board of the Peterborough citadel of the Salvation Army.
	Unfortunately, from the Labour party’s point of view, the debate has been rather confused. Undoubtedly, there is a problem. The precautionary principle is not that there should be unambiguous, completely definable evidence of a causal link between critical problem gambling and FOBTs. It is about the risk of problem gambling. One of my worries, which has been partly ameliorated today, is about the precautionary principle on the maximum stake. I was concerned that the research on the impact of those £100- spin games on the most vulnerable people in our constituencies should be undertaken by independent individuals. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) has defended the Responsible Gambling Trust, and he is right to do so. I do not distrust the RGT, but there are serious concerns.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stewart Jackson: I am always happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend talks about the precautionary principle in gambling and problem gambling. That is an argument for banning gambling altogether, because in any form of gambling there are people who become addicted. On that logic, his argument is to ban gambling altogether. Is he aware that someone can place a bet on a 5-furlong sprint at Epsom that takes 50 seconds with an unlimited amount of money? There is no limit whatsoever.

Stewart Jackson: It is interesting that my hon. Friend, for whom I have enormous respect—I think that he is wrong on this issue—should touch on the cumulative displacement impact on horse racing¸ football and greyhound betting.

Graham Jones: rose—

Stewart Jackson: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman is very engaging, but I must resist his blandishments on this occasion.
	I am not a devil take the hindmost, freemarket libertarian. I am a Conservative—I am a social conservative. I believe that there is a compact or bond of trust with the most vulnerable people in our society. There is a problem with problem gambling. As a Christian, I have compassion for those people who are stuck with the mindset of feeling that they have to gamble, but my concern is mostly for the children and families affected by problem gambling. We have a responsibility and a duty. We have regulatory regimes for many things in our society. I think that it would be wrong, when so much money is being made, and from some of the poorest people in society, to walk on by and say that we do not need to look at this again. Labour was catastrophically wrong on this issue. I think that this is the worst motion the Opposition have ever chosen, because they are on very weak ground.
	I believe that the Minister is right to look at the precautionary principle and to demand all the up-to-date information on the B2 machines, which are very sophisticated, from the gambling companies. A code of practice is not good enough, because we are not talking about Mother Teresa; we are talking about some pretty ruthless business organisations that are protecting their interests, and some of them are preying on the most vulnerable in society. We need the information. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that we need to base our decisions on data that can be proven and tested, not on anecdote.
	Having said that, I believe that the Salvation Army has produced a great deal of data. We heard earlier about the increase in the number of problem gamblers in recent years. Some 23% of the money spent on FOBTs was spent by people with gambling problems. According to Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones, the lead consultant at the NHS national problem gambling clinic, 50% of the clinic’s patients reported FOBTs to be particularly problematic.
	In short, we are a Government committed to localism, so let us give local authorities more powers to look at use class orders, to crack down on clustering and to look at the absolute number of FOBTs, all of which I agree with. But let us have a consensus across the House, rather than vindictive, party political point scoring, because this is too important an issue for our families and communities for that.

Julie Elliott: Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were to step off the train at Sunderland station, you would see a betting shop straight away, and you would not need to walk far to see several more. According to the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, in 2012 there were 30 betting shops in Sunderland Central, with 109 fixed odds betting terminals, with gross gambled amounts of nearly £120 million, the second highest in the north-east. The machines have been referred to as the crack cocaine of gambling so often that it is easy to become blasé about their effects, but the reason they are referred to in such terms is that their relentless speed and high stakes can be devastating.
	Problem gambling is associated with a number of mental and physical health issues, including depression and insomnia, in addition to comorbid disorders such as alcohol abuse. Problem gambling is a significant health issue, both from a public and a private perspective. Although treatment is needed and sought by many, prevention of extreme gambling behaviours should be boosted by giving local authorities the power to restrict the number of betting shops opening in their areas and revoke or reduce the number of FOBTs in each branch.
	FOBTs are purposefully and cynically targeted at the most vulnerable in society. They target areas of deprivation and take money away from those who can least afford to lose it. In an article published this morning, Dirk Vennix, chief executive of the Association of British Bookmakers, claimed that misinformation was being spread on the issue, citing the 2012 health survey for England, yet the same study shows that nearly twice as many people in the most deprived quintile use FOBTs than in the least deprived. It drags vulnerable people into cycles of debt, exacerbates our cost of living crisis and turns other shoppers away from our already struggling high streets.
	GamCare, which provides support and advice to anyone suffering from a gambling problem, has shown that 40% of all calls to its helpline named FOBTs as the main problem. There is a clear link between problem gambling and debt problems. Research from GamCare and the Money Advice Trust has revealed that debts of up to £60,000 might be common among problem gamblers. It also stated that there is an urgent need to improve education about gambling for young people in schools. Education is crucial, but often it is all too late. Problem gambling encouraged by FOBTs affects not just adults but an estimated 60,000 young people aged between 12 and 15. Furthermore, young people are far less likely to seek help for their gambling problems.
	The industry is stoking fears that any changes to FOBTs will inevitably lead to job losses, yet there is an inversely proportional relationship between the net takings of FOBTs and the number of employees in betting shops. As many branches are single-staffed, it can be difficult to monitor users and detect problem gamblers, and it will be even harder if the industry has its way and has the number of machines in each shop increased.
	Betting shop clusters do far more harm than just to gamblers. The Portas review said that
	“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.
	Indeed, it puts many people off going shopping on our high streets. FOBTs are bad for problem gamblers, bad for our high streets, and bad for public health. I very
	much hope that the Government’s promise of localism and greater local decision making in planning will count for something today, and that they will join us to put local communities before the profits of betting shops.

Angela Watkinson: I rise to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, which sets out a sensible and measured approach to any future changes to policy on fixed odds betting terminals or local authority powers in licensing and planning that is based on research into the effect of these terminals on the 1% of gamblers identified as problem gamblers.
	When I visited a local betting shop on a high street in my constituency, it was, unexpectedly, a rather quiet, low-key activity. I certainly did not recognise the picture painted by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who said that betting shops attracted drunkenness and bad behaviour. Gambling is as legitimate a leisure activity as going to football matches, pubs or the cinema.

Stephen Timms: Is the hon. Lady aware that it is well established that the staff of betting shops are instructed not to report violent incidents inside the shops in order to keep them out of the crime statistics?

Angela Watkinson: I can only say how strongly that contrasts with my experience of visiting a local betting shop in Hornchurch.
	Gambling is enjoyed by 8 million people nationally, and betting shops provide local jobs and help to stimulate the economy. People have the right to choose how they spend their disposable income. I have no gambling instinct personally. I choose not to gamble, but that choice is open to everyone, and I defend the right of others to gamble responsibly if that is their choice.

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. One of the key points is that in fixed premises on the high streets people cannot drink alcohol. If we were to push more people into online gambling, who knows what would happen, as people can sit and drink and gamble at very quick speeds?

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The betting shop I visited was more like a coffee shop, because tea and coffee were being served.
	I question the claim that betting shops are too numerous or not wanted. Clearly some local people do want them, otherwise they would not remain viable. Passers-by were not being dragged into the shop off the street—in fact, most people passed by—and nobody inside was being coerced into betting against their will or spending more money than they had planned. The well-trained staff knew most of their regular customers and were trained to notice any addictive behaviour should it occur. Help and advice was available to any individual who needed or wanted it.
	There is a consensus in Parliament and within the gambling industry that help should be available to the 1% who are unable to gamble responsibly and become addicted. We are right to be concerned about problem gambling but should seek ways to deal with it without
	spoiling the legitimate enjoyment of the 99% of responsible gamblers. The Association of British Bookmakers is bringing forward new measures as part of its code for responsible gambling and player protection. They include allowing players to limit their spending and the time they spend playing. Mandatory alerts will tell customers when they have played for 30 minutes or spent £250. Staff will also be alerted. The industry also raises nearly £6 million each year voluntarily for research, education and treatment for problem gamblers.
	The Opposition’s motion claims that they are
	“alarmed that people can stake as much as £100 every 20 seconds on these machines”.
	That really over-eggs the pudding and makes the motion cynical and gimmicky. The Association of British Bookmakers states that it is impossible to credit a machine that quickly. There is more chance of winning the national lottery for three consecutive times than of losing £18,000 in one hour on a gaming machine. Data show that most people play for an average of 15 to 20 minutes and spend about £11 an hour.
	It is very important that accurate evidence is gathered on the effect of fixed odds betting terminals on the 1% of problem gamblers; on the range of measures being undertaken by the gambling industry to prevent, identify and treat problem gamblers; and on whether the powers of local authorities as planning and licensing authorities are appropriate and effective. Any changes must also have regard to the 90% of responsible gamblers and the important contribution made by betting shops to local jobs and to the local and national economy, including 45,000 jobs and £1 billion in tax revenue. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also a non-paid, independent trustee of the Responsible Gambling Trust.
	The trust was set up under the previous Labour Government, who wanted the gambling industry to contribute to a voluntary levy towards research, education and treatment. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) said, nearly £6 million has been raised towards that end. There are five independent and five industry trustees under the chairmanship of Neil Goulden. I wanted to intervene earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who is not in his place—perhaps that is not unusual—to point out that Neil Goulden is not the chairman of the Association of British Bookmakers. The trust commissions work to look at the core issues affecting problem gambling and, indeed, the treatment of problem gamblers. It has an excellent chief executive in Marc Etches, who has considerable experience across the piece.
	I raise the trust’s work because the argument that this industry is unaware of its responsibilities on problem gambling is unjustified. The trust has commissioned detailed, independent research into fixed odds betting terminals and related matters. The important sub-committee that deals with the research and findings is chaired by a senior independent trustee, Liz Barclay, who is a respected broadcast journalist and producer. It has been made clear to the industry that whatever recommendations
	the research throws up, the trust will stand by them. An interim report is expected in March, with a full report to follow.
	Today’s debate is important because there are continuing concerns about FOBTs, especially among the Local Government Association and its members, as well as parliamentary colleagues. Those concerns are usually connected with the perceived proliferation of betting shops. The betting industry employs 40,000 people directly and there are 8,773 betting shops in Britain, which is far fewer than the 16,500 betting shops that existed in the 1970s.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, as usual. Will he confirm that about a third of those betting shops make about £15,000 or less in profit each year, and that half of them are independent, family-run businesses—I was brought up in a family-run betting shop—and not big corporate companies, as the Labour party likes to portray them?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I accept that there are many independent betting shops, but the problem, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in his speech, is the perceived proliferation of the main bookmakers on the high street. As he said, the reason is that they used to be on side streets, but they have now moved to the high streets. The problem for the gambling companies is that they are associated with payday loan companies and others on the high street that are causing great concern, especially among our local government colleagues.
	That is why I have no problem with the motion with regard to local government and its powers. Powers already exist alongside the licensing objectives in the Gambling Act, and many local authorities may use those powers if they think betting shops are acting outside those objectives. It is understandable that local authorities want more powers. As we have heard, FOBTs have always been on probation, and we should reflect on the fact that the deal done on the Gambling Act restricted betting premises to four machines.
	We must have evidence, however, and I think that it will be forthcoming through the Responsible Gambling Trust, which has asked bookmakers to provide it with a whole range of information. To counter the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, the independent directors will look at the report and recommendations, and will report to the full trustees. As was said by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), that Committee looked at the issue and determined that the number of machines and of betting shops should be decided locally by local authorities.
	My problem is with the antics of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. It is right and proper for the campaign to set out its view, but it is not right for it to try to vilify those who oppose its views. It sets out to rubbish any analysis that is not its own and, in particular, to try to rubbish the work of the Responsible Gambling Trust, which was set up to look at issues of problem gambling. If it is a real campaign for fairer gambling, why is its only focus on FOBTs? There are many other areas of problem gambling, as the gambling prevalence survey has shown. For instance, there are issues due to the
	price of national lottery tickets being increased from £1 to £2 and because people are able to buy them at 16, although they cannot go into betting shops until they are 18. There are many other issues to consider, including online gambling, which has already been talked about.
	I believe that the debate did not need to be emotive and that we could have got to the core of the issues. The point about local authorities having more powers was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I believe that we need to look at the subject sensibly and wait for the research to come out, and then make decisions based on that evidence.

John Leech: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, but I first want to add my tribute to my parliamentary neighbour, Paul Goggins. This cannot be said about many politicians, but I have never heard a bad word said about Paul by anyone on either side of the House. He was a very courteous Minister, and in opposition he treated Ministers with respect. He will be sorely missed on both sides of the House, and my thoughts are with his family and close friends at this difficult time.
	It is more interesting to see what is not in the motion than what is. Votes on Opposition day motions make no difference to Government policy, and we have come to expect from the Labour party motions on aspects of disagreement between the two coalition parties. I therefore fully expected to see yet another Opposition motion that matched Liberal Democrat policy—in other words, a commitment to reduce stakes and prizes, and plans for a separate use class for betting shops so that local authorities are given more powers to restrict the number of licensed betting shops on our high streets and in our local centres. Back in September, the Liberal Democrats called for betting shops to be put in a new separate planning use class, which would allow local authority planning committees to control their numbers. Just three months later, Labour announced that it would legislate to put betting shops in a separate use class so that councils could use planning powers to control the number opening in their area, so it is good to see Labour following our lead.
	Some, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), have claimed that the Government have missed an opportunity to proceed with a reduction in stakes and prizes on fixed odds betting terminals. I am therefore rather surprised that the motion fails to address the fundamental problem of people being able to stake £100 a spin. Instead, it simply focuses on slowing down the rate of spin. Even if the rate was slowed to the pace of a normal roulette table, with 50 spins an hour, someone could still lose up to £5,000, rather than the current £18,000.
	Liberal Democrat Members will not be lectured by Labour on fixed odds betting machines. After 13 years in government, its cultural legacy to our high streets and town centres was 24-hour drinking, lap dancing and fixed odds betting terminals. In the face of Liberal Democrat warnings, Labour allowed the introduction of these highly damaging and addictive gaming machines that have wreaked so much damage to people’s lives, although obviously we are delighted that Labour has finally woken up to the damage that its policies have caused to deprived high streets throughout the country.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that he will not be lectured by the Labour party, but will he be lectured by Derek Webb, who is the Unite of the Liberal Democrats—I believe that he has given £150,000 in donations to the Lib Dems over the past year? He heads the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. Will the hon. Gentleman set out what Derek Webb’s background is and where he got all his money from?

John Leech: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. However, I will take no lectures from anyone on either side of the House about political donations.
	To be fair to the Labour party, some of its Members have accepted that they made a mistake on FOBTs. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State has admitted that Labour made a mistake. However, Labour’s motion fails to address the problem of the £100-a-spin stakes that are still allowed on our high streets. I am happy to reject the motion not only on the basis that it would not solve the problems that are created by FOBTs, but because the timing of the debate is ill judged, given that the coalition Government are undertaking research into the impact of FOBTs.
	The Government have challenged the betting industry to implement enhanced player protection measures by March this year or face precautionary measures. If the industry fails to deliver on its commitments, or if at any time the balance of evidence suggests that action is required, the Government must not hesitate in imposing a precautionary reduction in stakes and prizes.
	It is no secret that there is disagreement between the coalition parties. Liberal Democrats believe that there is clear evidence that harm is caused by FOBTs. I am confident that the research will prove that there is a need for action. GamCare’s figures for last year show that 39% of the calls to its helpline came from people who specifically cited B2 machines. The Salvation Army estimates that the number of people with a problem increased by 30,000 between 2007 and 2010. Research conducted by Professor Gerda Reith at the university of Glasgow suggests that B2 machines pose a particular risk to problem gamblers because of their rapid rate of play that offers addicts the quick fix that they are looking for. A 2010 study in the European Journal of Public Healthfound:
	“Virtual gaming machines had the strongest association with gambling-related problems”
	of all the activities it studied, which included horse race betting, football betting, the lottery, online gambling, casino—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have to drop the time limit to three minutes to get in as many Members as possible. If we could have fewer interventions, it would be helpful.

Chris Evans: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	In debates of this nature, we are in danger of dividing the sector into good and bad gambling companies. Betting shops are seen as bad, while the national lottery, which has not even been mentioned in this debate, is
	seen as good. There can be no doubt that FOBTs have a high potential to cause gambling addiction, but there is a tendency to blame betting shops for everything.
	There has been no talk today of the presence of FOBTs in pubs and motorway service stations. When I drive down the M4 on a Monday and back up it on a Thursday, I can walk into a service station and think that I am in the middle of a mini-casino. Who is policing those places? Equally, there has been no mention of the dominant position of the national lottery. Newsagents up and down the land have lottery terminals, and scratchcards can be bought anywhere. They are far more accessible and far more addictive than FOBTs.
	We have to look seriously at FOBTs and other gaming machines. However, we must work not only with the betting industry, but with the pub industry, the owners of motorway service stations and amusement arcades, and Camelot. If we are to legislate properly in this area, we need a strong academic survey of the impact of prolonged use and of the clientele who use these machines. It is easy to bash these machines and the industry. Anecdotal evidence is all very well, but we need facts and figures before we intervene.
	Since such gaming machines were introduced in 2002, there has been no significant change in the level of problem gambling. It is not me who says that, but a study that was commissioned by the Gambling Commission in 2010. The same study indicated that problem gamblers played up to nine different products. They do not stand at FOBTs feeding in note after note; they look for other outlets for their addiction. As well as using the machines, a problem gambler bets on the horses and the dogs, and buys scratchcards. I have not heard anybody talking about how many people are addicted to scratchcards, yet people can just walk into a newsagents and buy one. No hon. Member would disagree that our aim should be to protect the customer, but my concern is that, by not debating the issue properly, we are not dealing with problem gamblers.
	In the short time I have left—only 30 seconds—I must also mention single staffing, on which a briefing has been provided today. That was a problem when I worked in a betting shop, and was the cashier and the manager. It is all very well saying that that was due to footfall, because only 20 people walked through the door, but those 20 people might want to put on bets at the same time. That situation put me under stress. I did not have to deal with FOBTs, but such a situation can stop members of staff policing them. There is also a social issue. I was being paid only to be the manager that day, not to be the cashier, so I was earning below the minimum wage. If the situation is still going on, it needs to be dealt with.

Damian Collins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and his thoughtful, careful speech on this sensitive subject. The Government’s approach is that we need firm evidence before any change is made to our gambling laws. That is absolutely right, and when I sat on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, our gambling inquiry showed that it is an incredibly complex area with a lot of contradictory evidence.
	Several Members have asserted that there has been an uncontrollable, unsustainable boom in gambling, but a study of the facts simply does not support that. There was an increase in the use of FOBTs after the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced, but the number of them on the high street has declined in the past three years. Betting shops are changing location, but there has been no explosion in their total number. Some Members have cited the gambling prevalence survey, which they say shows a 50% increase in problem gambling, but that increase is from 0.6% to 0.9% in problem gambling, according to surveys taken between 2007 and 2010. The change in numbers in those two studies are within the margin of error, so not necessarily statistically significant, and other studies since 2010 have demonstrated that instances of problem gambling are declining. That is why we must have a sensible evidence-based approach.
	The scenario that the Labour party paints about gambling on the high street, the prevalence of FOBTs, and the clustering of betting shops, was created entirely by the 2005 Act. Was the decision of the then Labour Government based on robust evidence and science? No. The Act perhaps had good intentions, but it has had massive unintended consequences. When Richard Caborn gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was asked why the previous Government settled on having four FOBTs in betting shops—what was the reason for that number? He responded:
	“There was no magic, scientific arrangement for four, I can honestly assure you. It was an agreement saying what was reasonable and what we believed—with the evidence that we had—was proportionate at the time. That is exactly how it happened.”
	It was their best guess, and it has led to the clustering of FOBTs on the high streets. Because there is demand for FOBTs and not enough premises to play them in, bookmakers have opened new betting shops so they can have new terminals.
	I was interested in the shadow Minister’s response to my earlier intervention when I said that, on face value, the wording of the Labour motion suggested that local authorities could retrospectively change the number of terminals in a shop, but only downwards. I think that refutes the idea that the motion is localist or about giving powers to local communities in any way. If it was, it might do what the Select Committee recommended and give local authorities the power to say, “Perhaps we will have more terminals in fewer shops, and fewer shops on the high street” and have the power to make that decision. This is not a localist motion but one in which the Labour party is asking councils to do what it wants—close betting shops and get rid of FOBTs altogether.

Pat Glass: In the little time available I will restrict my remarks to the impact of FOBTs on increased criminality and money laundering on our high streets. We might criticise the Gambling Act 2005, but it clearly states that gambling machines must prevent
	“gambling from being the being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime and disorder, or being used to support crime”,
	yet that is exactly what is happening on our streets. These machines are being used to launder millions of pounds of money from criminality, drug dealing, loan sharking, people trafficking and so on.
	There is a particularly nasty crime family in my constituency, and the Home Secretary has spoken on numerous occasions about the good work that County Durham has done to tackle organised crime. That crime family in my constituency has been moved on from “cash for crash”, drug dealing and so on, but where are they now? They are all over these FOBT machines. The Remote Gambling Association admitted in September that FOBTs represent a
	“high inherent money laundering risk”.
	The European Union is likely to include the machines in directive 4 on money laundering, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about that. Even the United Nations office on drugs and crime has warned that these games are used by organised crime to launder cash. The EU, the UN and even the Government recognise how dangerous this is. Despite the assertion from the gambling industry and the Association of British Bookmakers that they fully comply with the law, it is clear that, however inadvertently, these machines are now an integral and increasing part of the machinery of organised crime and money laundering. In the little time I have left, I plead with the Government to take seriously, in their review, the impact of FOBTs on money laundering and their increasing use, and to limit the stake.

Tracey Crouch: This is a serious issue, one that I have campaigned on locally and spoken on in this House. I hope the shadow Minister will look at my previous contributions before we go on local radio tomorrow morning and he will see what I have said on this issue in the past.
	I will not be supporting the Labour motion this evening. I will be supporting the Government’s amendment, because a lot of progress is being made. The tone of the debate—that the proliferation in our high streets is the Government’s fault—is a bit rich when Labour’s 2005 Act, which liberalised much of the regulations and legislation, has caused the problem we are all now concerned about.
	I share the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House about the impact that FOBTs are having on our constituents, but it is wrong and misguided for Opposition Members to say that the issue is applicable only to those in deprived areas. I represent a constituency with areas of multiple deprivation. The figures for the amount being gambled in FOBTs in those areas are the same as those for the amount being gambled in the much more affluent areas of Kent, such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells, so it is difficult to say that this issue is confined to more deprived areas.
	It is important to consider the evidence, collect all the necessary data and ensure that we respond accordingly. My only concern, if I were to have one criticism of the Government’s policy, is that that should be done more quickly. Having an interim report early next year and a report later in the autumn will not be quick enough to deal with the issue, because it is an increasing problem. I am not opposed to giving councils more flexibility to
	deal with clustering, but the problem is not exclusive to bookmakers. As a consequence of previous legislation, it is also the case with payday loan companies, pawnbrokers and licensed premises.
	We do not necessarily need legislation to deal with this problem. Conservative-led Medway council has been working with other organisations and has implemented a voluntary code of conduct with the ABB to try to ensure that we deal with problem gambling directly. That is a much more sensible way forward and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of that partnership.

Tom Greatrex: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She took part in an Adjournment debate I secured in April on this subject, and she agreed that we should give local authorities the opportunity to provide part of the solution. I understand that she will not be voting for the motion, but the Government should listen to the spirit of what she has said, particularly on the rapidity of the research—that was a point well made.
	You can get odds of 66:1 on Fulham winning the FA cup this season, Mr Speaker. I had my usual annual bet before the third round. Both Fulham and Norwich tried to lose, but we are still in the cup. I mention that to make the point to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that not everybody who has concerns about FOBTs is anti-gambling or views it as anathema.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) has indicated from a sedentary position several times during the course of the debate that the number of FOBT machines has gone down, but that is not the case in my constituency. The point of the motion and the debate is about those areas where the number of machines and betting shops is increasing. I invite him to come with me to Cambuslang main street, in my constituency, a small main street that now has five betting shops, each with four machines, within 200 yards of each other. Before my Adjournment debate last April, I visited several betting shops in my constituency, and in Glasgow close to my constituency and in London, and each time I saw people on the machines for long periods putting in significant amounts—I could see that just by standing there. The Government must take cognisance of that, instead of just saying that the number of machines has fallen. This is a problem about proliferation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said at the start of the debate.
	My interest in this subject arose in late 2011 when a constituent came to me having lost £25,000 in a single month on a machine in a betting shop in my constituency. It was no surprise to me that the betting shop was in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. He came to me not because he thought he had a problem, but because he thought the machines were fixed. That underlines the point. I spent some time with Hamilton gamblers’ anonymous. Strikingly, several younger people in that group had accepted they had a problem, had gone for help and were trying to resolve their issues, but they had a problem relating to these machines. The situation was very different with the older people in that group. The Government ought to take that seriously.
	We have heard a lot about the staff in the shops. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) knows from his experience that people in those betting shops often feel under pressure not to report things. They have said very clearly that they want to be bookmakers, not bouncers, and that they find themselves intimidated into not reporting incidents. All these are important issues, but the proliferation and concentration of shops in particular areas is the big issue that the Government should address first.

Fiona Bruce: Some 400,000 people in this country are problem gamblers and 3.5 million are at risk of developing a gambling problem. These are not small numbers. Furthermore, 50% of problem gamblers reporting to the National Problem Gambling Clinic say that fixed odds betting terminals are a disproportionate cause of problem gambling. We can understand why that is when we hear that these high-stakes machines can take bets of £100 per game and that up to £1,800 can be lost in an hour. Every year in the UK, people lose more than £1 billion on FOBTs, of which problem gamblers lose £300,000.
	Users do not need to be addicted for catastrophic problems to be caused to them and their families. It is not just an individual problem, but a grave social and public health issue that we need to recognise and deal with. Phill Holdsworth, head of external affairs at Christians Against Poverty, says:
	“Where we work with families…where one member…has a problem with gambling it is very difficult and often impossible to provide any form of debt solution. It is not possible to put forward a solution without them receiving help or support for their addiction. This means the other family members”
	continue to suffer. He continued:
	“A debt solution is very difficult to apply when gambling problems are present.”
	Problem gambling costs society £3.24 billion a year, and the addition of each problem gambler severely affects the lives of about eight individuals around them. As such, about 3 million people are now affected by problem gambling—every one an individual, every one a blighted life, many of them children. We urgently need a concerted Government approach and—I believe—a cross-party approach to address the economic, social and health costs associated with problem gambling. The Salvation Army, whose work I pay tribute to in this respect, says:
	“Problem gambling particularly affects the young… Problem gambling amongst young people is an emerging public health issue. In the UK, over 10% of children who gamble are problem gamblers, whilst 18% of them are at risk gamblers.”
	I agree with the phrase used by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), when he said that many people viewed gambling as anathema. I do. We need to review our whole approach towards gambling. The average treatment for a problem gambler costs £675, meaning that £274 million would be required to treat all problem gamblers in the UK, yet the gambling industry’s contribution is just £5 million.

Nigel Adams: I understand that the terminals generate about £300 million of tax revenue. Given my hon. Friend’s comments, has she considered the impact that Labour’s proposals might have on the Exchequer?

Fiona Bruce: They might terminate that amount of revenue, but the gross gambling yield for the industry is £5.6 billion a year. I consider inadequate a contribution of £5 million to research, education and treatment activities related to gambling, which equates to less than 2% of their income. As I say, we need a wholesale review.
	I oppose the Opposition motion, which is wholly inadequate, not least because the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who introduced it, said that the motion was not about problem gambling. Well, it should be. I support the Government amendment, but I exhort the Minister to expedite the research and extend the Government’s work on the devastating causes and consequences of all problem gambling, not least for the sake of our next generation.

Hugh Bayley: Let us start on a note of cross-party unity: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has just said. I have limited time, so I will cut directly to the chase. I see five Ministers on the Treasury Bench, all of them well educated and intelligent people, so I ask them to think about the contradiction in the case they are making. They tell us that the Gambling Act 2005 was a mistake, which has intentionally or unintentionally given rise to the current problems, although those of us present in 2005 will remember that we did not talk about fixed odds betting terminals at any length, but about super-casinos and other matters. Ministers tell us that that 2005 Act, introduced by a Labour Government, has created a major problem. They blame us for bringing it in and then for doing nothing to correct the situation over the subsequent five years.
	I say to those Ministers that if there is a problem—they accept that there is one, as we heard from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant)—they have a five-year window in which to do something about it. Let me challenge the Minister: will the Government legislate during this Parliament to correct what they have told us today about the grave errors in the 2005 Act? I lay down the same challenge to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is going to reply. If Ministers seriously believe that the accusations made against Labour Members are correct—that there is a serious problem, which I believe there is, and that it needs solving—let me say, “The ball is in your court, chum”. Are Ministers going to bring forward legislation before the general election?
	Secondly, Members of all parties have rightly pointed out that the top 10% of constituencies with the highest use of, and with the highest profits taken from, FOBTs are largely in deprived areas, although they are not all in those areas. I would like to mention a group of places in the top 10% that I would call tourist destinations. They include my constituency of York Central, Blackpool South, Brighton Pavilion, Bournemouth West, Cambridge, Great Yarmouth, Kensington, Norwich North, Oxford East, Torbay and the two Westminster constituencies.
	I do not believe that the proliferation of high-street gambling in these tourist destinations is good for tourism. If someone comes to York and has a flutter on York
	races, that is part of a day out, and if £20 is lost on a race, so be it; it can probably be put down as part of the cost of a good day. If someone comes to York and loses £1,000 on one of these terminals, they will not think that they have had a good day out, and they will not forget it. For tourist towns as well as the deprived areas, this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: We have had an extremely lively debate this afternoon on an issue that many Members across the Chamber clearly feel strongly about. Unfortunately, what we heard from the Minister was breathtaking complacency and the usual “blame Labour” mantra, but it will not wash. It is this Government who are failing to take action on the issue and who have facilitated a proliferation of FOBTs and betting shops on our high streets. Despite the Minister’s speech, a number of Government Members seemed to agree with us that additional powers should be given to local government. It will be interesting to see whether they rediscover their commitment to localism and vote with us in the Lobby.
	A number of Members have made excellent speeches this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke of the inadequacy of local government powers to control betting shops, and pointed out that action under those powers can be overturned on appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who has done a great deal of work on this topic, helpfully drew attention to the inadequacy of the Government’s research strategy. My hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mark Hendrick), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for York Central (Hugh Bayley) noted the prevalence of gambling outlets in low-income areas, the problems of debt that that causes, and the negative impact of too many betting shops on the high street. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham also noted the rise in criminality that is associated with betting shops in some areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) injected a much-needed degree of sense into the debate by returning us to the central issue of localism. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke of the importance of getting regulation right, not least because of the large number of people who work in the industry.
	Neither I nor my colleagues object to a betting shop or two on the high street, and I appreciate that the industry has a code to encourage responsible gambling, but, as a number of Members have said, that does not go far enough. It is vital for the Government to take action to recognise the wishes and needs of local communities. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are more than 33,000 FOBTs making £1.5 billion each year for the big bookmakers—that constitutes about half their annual profits—and traditional bookies throughout the country are being turned into mini-casinos where people can gamble up to £300 a minute. Liverpool alone contains 559 terminals, which took £607 million last year. Newham in east London contains 87 betting shops with 348 terminals, and figures released recently by the Greater London Authority showed a 13% increase
	in the number of betting shops in London’s town centres between January 2010 and December 2012. We have heard how some players have become addicted to FOBTs, and how the machines, and the proliferation of betting shops that promote them, are causing debt and misery, as well as acting as a magnet for crime and antisocial behaviour.
	We always made clear that FOBTs were on probation, and it was said during the Second Reading of the Gambling Act 2005 that we would keep them under review. In 2009, when we were in government, we said that would conduct a review because we were concerned about these machines. The current Government, however, have decided to do nothing: five years on, there has been no review. Government Members claim that local authorities have the powers that they need to regulate betting shops, but we have heard time and again from councillors of all parties that that is simply not the case. The next Labour Government will change planning and licensing laws to give councils the right to control the number of betting shops in their areas. If betting shops are not a problem, as the industry is keen to emphasise, they have nothing to fear from such a change.
	There is considerable cross-party agreement on this issue. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out during Prime Minister’s Question Time today, the Mayor of London and the Conservative head of the Local Government Association have said that local authorities do not have the power to limit the number of FOBTs. Indeed, the Prime Minister acknowledged during Question Time that there was a problem in the gaming and betting industry, and stated that we need to “sort it out.” If he recognises the problem, why is he not supporting our motion this evening?
	As for the Liberal Democrats, during their annual conference in September they agreed to a motion that would give councils the power to limit the number of betting shops in their area, agreeing specifically to put betting shops in a new separate use class, although they had previously voted against such a motion in the House of Commons. That, of course, is typical Liberal Democrat behaviour. The wording of their motion was very similar to the wording of our motion today. I urge Government Members to recognise that, and to support our motion in order to implement their own policy commitments.
	The country is experiencing a cost of living crisis. The average person has become £1,600 worse off since the current Government came to power. People are facing extreme difficulties in affording child care, rail fares and heating their homes. While the Members on the Government Benches are handing tax cuts out to millionaires, millions of people are struggling, and it is at a time such as this that the most vulnerable in our society need protecting. That is exactly what my colleagues and I are proposing in this motion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) highlighted when he launched Labour’s policy last month, in the poorest areas these betting shops are spreading like an epidemic along high streets with the pawn shops and payday lenders that are becoming symbols of Britain’s cost of living crisis. Our local high streets must meet the needs of local communities, not simply the wishes of betting companies and other similar groups.
	We know that the most urgent case needs to be made for changing again the system of use class orders. Use classes play a central role in the planning system by defining the potential uses of buildings. They not only protect certain uses, but also streamline the system by allowing for some changes without the need to apply for planning permission. However, over the course of last year the Government have decided to do away with the protections offered by the use class system and in doing so have stripped communities of a say in the shape of their high streets. In May 2013 the Government introduced changes to use class orders to allow retail use to change to financial institutions without planning permission for a period of two years, allowing the possibility of more betting shops on our high streets and they also now have the audacity to say they may make this change permanent. We are arguing that the Government should do what they say they want to do and give powers to local communities to have a say over what is happening in their high streets, so that if a problem is identified with an over-proliferation of gambling and betting shops local communities are able to pull the plug on these gaming machines, which are unwanted in many of our areas.

Nicholas Boles: I understand that traditionally Opposition debates were designed to allow Her Majesty’s Opposition to attack Government policy but since 2010, when I was elected to this House, there has been a constitutional innovation, as I am sure you will have noticed, Mr Speaker. The Labour party uses these debates to attack Labour Government policy and to condemn those like the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) who implemented those policies and to repudiate anything inherited from the period which many Labour Members like to think of as the Blairite apostasy. So this debate is nothing more than an elaborate exercise in exorcising the ghosts of new Labour’s past.
	Let us examine those ghosts. In 2003 the Labour Government doubled the number of gaming machines allowed in licensed premises from two to four and increased the maximum prize from £25 to £250, but that was not enough. In 2006 the Labour Government saw the gambling industry as the handmaiden of the regeneration of cities like Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle and they were not just proposing a row of little betting shops: they wanted super-casinos with unlimited jackpots.
	There are very few people on the Opposition Benches whom I admire more than the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell)—I believe the Olympics would never have happened without her contribution—so in researching this debate I wanted to read her words as Secretary of State when she was promoting gambling as the best regeneration policy for Britain’s inner cities. Imagine my shock, Mr Speaker, when I discovered that all of her speeches have been erased from the Labour party website, and not just her speeches, Mr Speaker, but every speech, every policy document and every press release predating the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in September 2010.
	We have all heard of communist regimes rewriting history and airbrushing photographs of the politburo, but Soviet measures pale by comparison. The history of
	new Labour is not just being rewritten; it is being deleted. The noble Lord Mandelson had better watch his step, or, before we know it, he will have gone the way of Kim Jong-Un’s uncle and been thrown to the ravenous dogs.
	We have established that the true purpose of this debate has been to heal the Opposition’s psychological traumas. I think we can agree that we are on familiar ground. Labour has decided that another of its policies in government was a mistake. My hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party and my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) have consistently and honourably raised their concerns about that policy. In Prime Minister’s questions today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed his desire to address those concerns sensibly, steadily and with evidence, and to achieve a proper balance.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) has set out in a measured way the work she is doing with the gambling industry, with the Responsible Gambling Trust and with other bodies to do what the Labour Government did not do before introducing the Gambling Act 2005—namely, to conduct research into the impact of those measures. That is the research that my hon. Friend is leading, and it will produce a result.
	My opposite number, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), raised the issue of planning controls and article 4. She asked for more powers for councils to introduce restrictions on the proliferation of betting shops on their high streets. I think I had better introduce her to one of her colleagues, a Labour councillor, Fiona Colley. She is a councillor for Southwark council, which only three months ago introduced immediate article 4 directions to prevent the conversion—

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles: I am sorry, I will not give way; I have only two minutes.
	That Labour councillor introduced an article 4 measure with immediate effect to prevent the conversion of more premises from other use classes to that of a betting shop. Let me quote that Labour councillor’s words on the Southwark council website—[Interruption.] She is a Labour councillor, and Labour Members might want to listen to her. She knows a lot more about this than they do. Councillor Fiona Colley, who is soon to become my favourite councillor, said:
	“This innovative, proactive approach to addressing planning legislation will make a tangible change to the lives of people living in areas where so-called ‘financial services’ businesses are so prolific.”
	Those article 4 measures, which this Government have made it easier to use because they no longer require the approval of the Secretary of State, are good enough for Southwark. They are also good enough for Barking and Dagenham. In fact, 122 local authorities have made 270 article 4 declarations to restrict permitted development rights in the past three years. If one Labour authority in London thinks they are a good thing, and
	if 121 other local authorities think they are a good thing, it seems pretty clear to me that we need no more planning changes to enable councils to do what they want to do to protect their local communities. This debate has no doubt been helpful for the psychological catharsis of the Labour party, and I wish Labour Members well as they come to terms with their abiding grief about the record of the previous Government. This Government will continue, with the help of my Liberal Democrat colleagues—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly(Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 232, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 311, Noes 225.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House understands the public concerns around fixed odds betting terminals regulated by the Gambling Act 2005; notes that the Government has made clear that it considers the future of B2 regulation to be unresolved; welcomes the Government-backed research into the effect of fixed odds betting terminals on problem gambling; believes that any development in the Government’s policy on this matter should be evidence-led; calls upon the betting industry to provide the data required for a proper understanding of the impact of fixed odds betting terminals; and further notes that local authorities already have planning powers to tackle localised problems and target specific areas where the cumulative impact of betting shops or other specific types of premises might be problematic, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Regulatory Fitness and Effective Evaluation

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13920/13, a Commission Communication: Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT)–Results and Next Steps, and No. 13921/13, a Commission Communication: Strengthening the foundations of Smart Regulation–improving evaluation; welcomes the Commission’s commitments to lessening the burden of EU regulation on business and its plans to improve its evaluation procedures; and supports the Government’s efforts to press the Commission for further and faster progress in reducing EU regulatory burdens on business and eliminating barriers to growth.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

UKTI (WEST MIDLANDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Daniel Kawczynski: My debate is on the performance of UK Trade & Investment in the west midlands, and especially Shropshire. I have spent the past year producing a report on UKTI, on which we had a debate last year to which the Minister kindly responded, and hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises from around the United Kingdom were interviewed to understand their perception of UKTI and what assistance they were receiving from this important Government body on exporting overseas.
	Once the report was finished, it was important for me to expand and extrapolate the work to focus on Shropshire, particularly Shrewsbury, to try to find out how UKTI is performing to help Shrewsbury companies not only to export but—this is the second part of the body’s responsibilities—to secure direct foreign inward investment into our county. I therefore invited the head of UKTI in the west midlands, Mr Paul Noon, to visit Shrewsbury to meet representatives of Shropshire council and the local enterprise partnership, including the officer responsible for business development at Shropshire, Mr Mark Pembleton. I said to Mr Noon, “Can you list the top 10 inward investment opportunities in Shropshire?” Unfortunately, he had no idea, which was of great concern to me. I could not understand how, given all the resources that UKTI has, it had not carried out work in the west midlands to identify and agree on the top inward investment opportunities in Shropshire. I therefore tasked Mr Noon to work with the local council and the LEP to identify them.
	I am pleased to state that, as a result of that work, the top inward investment opportunities in Shropshire have now been identified. They include an innovation park, a new shopping centre for Shrewsbury, opportunities in transport, leisure and tourism, and agriculture—of course, Shropshire is an important agricultural community. I have sent the Minister an electronic copy of “Invest in Shropshire”, and I am pleased to be able to show him a printed version today. All the opportunities in the brochure are now agreed between UKTI and the local council. I hope that he will talk about those opportunities when he responds.
	This work was carried out very well towards the end of last year. I pay tribute to Mr Paul Noon and his team for working so assiduously with the council and the LEP to identify the projects, to agree on them, and then to start to move them forward. However, I worry that such work has not been carried out in the past and that it took me such a concerted effort to get all the parties together. Interestingly, I have spoken to many fellow MPs in other shire counties—I will not name them all—who are quite surprised by the work that has been carried out in Shropshire. They do not see similar activities in their own counties, and they are starting to get interested in what we are doing. If the project is successful and the newly formed LEPs, the councils and UKTI agree to co-operate, I very much hope that the best practice of the work we have done in Shropshire can be disseminated to other shire counties.
	The work was implemented very well because I invited Mr Nick Baird, the former chief executive of UKTI, to visit Shropshire on 5 November. There was a real sense of impetus among UKTI and everyone concerned that, in advance of his visit, opportunities ought to be identified and agreed by all relevant parties. I am extremely disappointed that Mr Baird has now left the organisation, although I am not sure why he has done so. We had a wonderful day with him in Shropshire and he seemed extremely enthusiastic about identifying opportunities. He promised that he would take a leading role in ensuring that they were sold overseas. I wish him every success in whatever he has chosen to do, but it is nevertheless disappointing that he has left the organisation.
	On 5 November, we took Mr Baird to see various projects mentioned in the “Invest in Shropshire” manifesto, which is now in the public domain. We took him to see the flax mill, which according to a report in The Daily Telegraph this week is one of the top 10 most important buildings in the United Kingdom. The flax mill built in Shrewsbury was Britain’s first skyscraper. It is in need of a huge amount of investment, and significant work is being done to transform it into a new facility.
	We also took Mr Baird to the Harper Adams agricultural college in Shropshire, which is one of England’s leading agricultural institutes, so that he could see some of its extraordinary and pioneering agricultural work and research, which is another extremely important field in which Britain can excel for exports. We all know that farming techniques in England are among the best, and the most efficient and productive, in the world. I am keen to ensure that UKTI does everything possible to sell that agricultural expertise, especially to countries in the middle east that are looking for innovative and pioneering ways of farming.
	We took Mr Baird into the town centre of Shrewsbury so that he could look at the immense opportunity to construct a brand new shopping centre. We also took him to the shire hall to meet councillors, local business representatives and the LEP so that he could identify key areas with which Shropshire needs assistance to sell itself to overseas markets.
	We ended the day by taking Mr Baird to one of my favourite pubs in the village of Atcham, the Mytton and Mermaid, where he met more than 50 small and medium-sized business leaders from throughout Shropshire, many of whom are already exporting. He had the opportunity to find out about some of the extraordinary success that SMEs in Shrewsbury and Shropshire have had in exporting, in certain cases with the assistance of UKTI.
	I was due to meet Mr Jon Harding of UKTI to continue discussions this week, but unfortunately, due to a family bereavement, he was not able to come to the House of Commons. I hope to see him in due course, however. We also have meetings planned with Michael Boyd, and I have met Lord Livingston, the new Minister in the other House, whom the Prime Minister has appointed to take the lead on running UKTI. For the record, I have asked the chairman of the 1922 committee to invite him to address all Conservative Members of Parliament. He felt that he was not yet ready to address us, but I very much hope that when he is more settled in the job, he will do so formally. I want Lord Livingston, the successor to Lord Green, to have far more interaction with us in the House of Commons.
	I berate, decry and am genuinely concerned about the fact that this debate is only the fourth or fifth on British exports in this Parliament, four of which I initiated. I find that staggering, given that we all think that exports are so important to the balance of payments and the prosperity of this country, and for attracting inward investment to our country and getting hard currency for our communities and the country as a whole. I am amazed at the general lack of interest in UKTI and the lack of scrutiny that generally tends to happen in the House. I very much hope that Lord Livingston, when he has settled in properly to his role, will try to change that and that he will engage with the House of Commons so that we are more involved in scrutinising UKTI.
	All the opportunities identified are now listed on www.investinshropshire.com. I very much hope to hear from the Minister what UKTI will do in the west midlands and nationally to promote and sell the opportunities overseas.
	It is brilliant that the United Kingdom is the top destination for foreign inward investment in the European Union. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the United Kingdom has the No. 1 ranking in the EU for attracting such direct investment. That is an extraordinary achievement, and I certainly pay tribute to the work of UKTI, the Minister and others for ensuring that the United Kingdom is in such an extraordinary position.
	There is, however, an over-dependency on London and the south-east. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the whole structure of UKTI is more focused on selling opportunities in shire counties and areas outside London? Our capital city is of course very important and will inexorably attract the lion’s share of direct foreign inward investment. Many of the foreign business men I know gravitate inextricably to London, barely venture outside it and always look at opportunities there. UKTI therefore has a responsibility to try to present equivalent like-for-like investment opportunities, or tangibly similar opportunities, outside London to calibrate foreign direct investment more across the whole of England and the United Kingdom, rather than just in London. London accounts for 13% of the United Kingdom’s population yet, according to Ernst and Young, it receives 45% of all projects involving foreign direct investment.
	I am now involved in only one all-party group. I have been the chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia for the past eight years. I feel passionately about that country, and we ought to engage far more with it to secure foreign investment from it. I will play my part in trying to sell the opportunities in Shropshire, but I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister will take to support us.
	According to a UKTI report, 1,559 projects across the United Kingdom were financed by foreign direct investment last year. Those projects created more than 59,000 jobs in this country, which is a staggering amount of additional employment. That FDI not only secured those jobs, but protected an existing 110,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. We cannot overestimate the importance of securing foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom.
	I understand why the Government are focused on a localism agenda. Shropshire borders Wales, and it has lost business to Wales because of the incentives and grants that the Welsh Assembly can offer to certain companies. When there are different Assemblies and Parliaments, there will be differences across national boundaries as different parts of the United Kingdom try to attract investment. Being a border town, Shrewsbury is very conscious of that. There are discussions about giving Wales separate tax-raising powers and there is, of course, a big debate going on in Scotland. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s long-term plans on empowering local councils, such as Shropshire council, eventually to have the ability to differentiate themselves so that they can attract foreign direct investment, whether that is through taxation or by charging different rates.
	We are still borrowing more than £100 billion a year to balance the books. There is nothing more important than securing foreign direct investment. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, but only the 12th largest exporter. I, for one, will not rest until we are the fifth largest exporter in the world and until shire counties such as Shropshire start to receive greater assistance compared with London and the south-east so that we can attract our fair share of foreign direct investment.

Michael Fallon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate and thank him for his comments on the work of UKTI in the west midlands. I know that he is a great supporter of local businesses and that he encourages them to trade internationally.
	Last year saw a significant rise in the export of goods from the west midlands. The region exported goods worth more than £22.5 billion in 2012-13. In the first three quarters of this financial year, goods worth more than £19 billion have already been exported, with a total of 6,222 companies exporting goods from the region. That success is being led by companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and JCB, but I am sure that some of it can be attributed to UKTI’s team in the west midlands.
	There are 39 UKTI international trade advisers in the west midlands, including four who cover my hon. Friend’s constituency. They are employed by the chambers of commerce under a contract with UKTI. More than 2,200 small and medium-sized enterprises were supported across the region in 2012-13 and nearly 2,700 have been supported so far in this financial year. That is a 20% increase. That is partly due to six additional advisers being appointed this year. UKTI has two specialist mid-sized business advisers in the west midlands, who support companies with a turnover of between £25 million and £500 million. Those businesses include Bournville college, with its links to India and Malaysia, and Morgan Advanced Materials, a defence company based in Coventry that is looking to south America and the middle east.
	In the first nine months of this financial year, businesses supported by UKTI in the west midlands declared that they had secured business wins of more than £281 million. Those businesses include Serious Games International, a Coventry-based company that uses video games technology to solve business problems. With UKTI’s help, the company has secured business in Singapore worth £250,000 this year.
	A range of support is provided for companies in the west midlands, including Passport to Export for novice exporters, and Gateway to Global Growth for more experienced exporters. Help and advice is also provided to carry out research, visit and exhibit overseas, and to find the right contact in more than 100 international markets. For example, as my hon. Friend may know, the Shrewsbury-based diamond chainsaw and blade supplier, Toolguy Ltd, has been supported by the UKTI west midlands Shropshire team through the Gateway to Global Growth programme. That company now exports to France, New Zealand, Brazil and the United States, with exports accounting for almost a third of its total sales.
	UKTI also introduced the Whisky Trading Company based in Shrewsbury to one of Japan’s leading travel agencies, Japan Travel Bureau. That deal has seen the company exhibited in catalogues on planes and trains all over Japan. Working with UKTI’s international trade advisers is a UK export finance adviser based in the region, soon to be increased to two UKEF advisers. The current adviser has been invaluable in supporting companies to take up UKEF’s range of short-term export finance products. For example, working with HSBC, support was provided through the bond support scheme to Vee Bee Filtration UK based in Stourbridge. UKEF helped the company obtain two letters of credit in lieu of a performance bond and a warranty bond worth £175,000 in total. That helped the company to start work on a £1.67 million contract with a large US construction and engineering business.
	Many events are arranged and held in the region by UKTI and its partners throughout the year. For example, last November, 1,250 west midlands firms attended more than 20 events as part of export week—the biggest turnout of any region in the country. Explore Export, which took place at Edgbaston that week, saw 350 firms meet commercial officers from 65 countries.
	The first major event of 2014 will be on 22 January at JCB’s “Meet the Mittelstand”. That will introduce medium-sized businesses to what makes German companies of that size so successful in the global market place. Lord Livingston will be speaking at the event in his first regional visit as the new trade Minister. UKTI in the west midlands will again be organising events in the two export weeks in April and November this year. It will also take part in the international business festival in Liverpool starting in June, including arranging an event on India.
	UKTI west midlands also works closely with BIS growth accelerator and the manufacturing advisory service to provide ongoing appropriate support to companies. Meetings are held on a monthly basis, sharing data and developing case studies to aid mutual referral. UKTI works closely with local enterprise partnerships. For example, UKTI in the west midlands has developed an international trade plan with The Marches LEP. That is
	pending formal sign off, which is expected at the next LEP board meeting this month. UKTI is represented on two of The Marches LEP’s three business boards, where input is provided into the business support agenda covering both trade and investment.
	UKTI also supports joint events and activities within the LEP, running five Export for Growth events across Shropshire in 2013. The next event is this month and will involve my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. UKTI is working with the LEP on the opt-in for the new European regional development fund programme, which has the potential to bring in an additional £426,000 a year for export support.
	UKTI Investment Services also works with partners across the west midlands. It is focused on delivering new investments and creating jobs within existing foreign direct investment companies. In 2012-13 it was involved in 88 projects leading to the creation of 4,600 jobs and the safeguarding of a further 4,583 jobs—a total of some 9,189 jobs across the west midlands. UKTI Investment Services has also developed closer working relationships with The Marches LEP in the past 12 months, leading to safeguarding jobs and securing new jobs within existing local investors. UKTI Investment Services, as my hon. Friend said, is supporting Shropshire council to develop a number of sectoral propositions, which include: agri-tech, food and drink, environmental technologies and creative industries. They will be incorporated into The Marches LEP offer this year. My hon. Friend has worked with UKTI Investment Services and Shropshire council over the past four months to prioritise and develop opportunities to attract inward investors to the area. I understand, as he said, that templates have now been developed for six key opportunities aimed at securing future overseas investment into Shropshire. Indeed, I understand that representatives from the Regeneration Investment Organisation will be visiting the west midlands on 17 January, and that they have arranged to meet Shropshire council to develop an action plan to promote those opportunities.
	My hon. Friend asked me one specific and fair question. How much of UKTI activity, he asked, takes place outside the capital, where there are more obvious opportunities to encourage overseas inward investment? I can tell my hon. Friend that 70% of UKTI activity takes place outside London.
	I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate. I hope he agrees that UKTI in the west midlands is having an effective impact on trade and investment not only within his constituency but across the region as a whole.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.